To spin or not to spin?

148 replies
I am in a debate with myself about whether to spin my articles or not so I would like some input. Here are my thoughts:

Spin:
  • Fairly unique article spun with MAR to mass submit using MAS with backlinks pointing to my original article.
  • Fairly unique article to submit to other prominent article directories (original is at Ezine)
Not Spin:
  • Articles get picked up from Ezine, etc. all the time and they are republished as is. I have several articles that have been republished dozens of times.
  • I just don't have the time to spin! It is easier to resubmit the same article to other directories.

Just so you know, I tend to spend a lot of time spinning my articles. I spin sentences, paragraphs and about every third word. This is why it is such a chore - one article can take me an hour at the least!

Now I know that there is a lot of differing opinions on this subject and I am open to suggestions. In fact, I am BEGGING for suggestions! I have several sites that are ranking on the first page for several keywords, but I need to get them to rank higher.

I prefer article marketing for backlinks because it is something I am fairly good at. I am not a good blog commenter!
#spin
  • Profile picture of the author AprilCT
    I've looked at what spinners do to an article, and don't like the time it takes or even most of the choices presented. It's not difficult to pick out spinner "articles" in various publications. Quite frankly, spun articles just don't measure up to the quality you want associated with your name.

    It's really much more simple to gather the information on keywords that you want and write it yourself.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3319778].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author charlesgosu
      Not to spin... spinning is so obvious now and it's a little tricky.. but much stress free though.. making your article is the way to go just keep it simple and with just the write keywords.. its all good
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3319974].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
    Hi Scrapgirl

    scrapgirl42 - Fairly unique article to submit to other prominent article directories (original is at Ezine)
    The only people that seem to go around saying you need to have unique content for each article directory are the people that sell spinning software.

    I and many other's do not do this and if you read their terms of service they don't say you should.

    The one exeption, that does require unique content is Buzzle.
    Signature

    Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3320035].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author alcymart
    Same here, I spun them at first, but not anymore. It's a chore unless you want your name associated with grammatically incorrect sentences and take as much time if not longer than to write a new article from scratch.

    Spinning is a desperation act. I won't go as far as saying that spinning is for the lazy folks that think they can trick their way to success but I think I just said it....LOL

    Anyway, it's my opinion.

    Bernard
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3320051].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PatriciaJ
    Originally Posted by AprilCT View Post

    I've looked at what spinners do to an article, and don't like the time it takes or even most of the choices presented. It's not difficult to pick out spinner "articles" in various publications. Quite frankly, spun articles just don't measure up to the quality you want associated with your name.

    It's really much more simple to gather the information on keywords that you want and write it yourself.
    I agree with that but the op said

    Originally Posted by scrapgirl42 View Post

    Just so you know, I tend to spend a lot of time spinning my articles. I spin sentences, paragraphs and about every third word. This is why it is such a chore - one article can take me an hour at the least!
    Which sounds to me like her spun articles are better quality than the usual stuff you get from software.

    However, I don't believe that spinning is necessary and think that it is better to spend the time on creating fresh articles. Perhaps becoming a guest blogger on authority sites would be a good idea for you.

    I'm not a good blog commenter either. I look every day and it takes me ages to find a blog with an article that I might want to comment on without it looking like spam. Some days I can't find any that I feel comfortable commenting on so I might as well have spent the time writing another article.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3320102].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Barry Unruh
    Originally Posted by scrapgirl42 View Post

    I have several sites that are ranking on the first page for several keywords, but I need to get them to rank higher.

    I prefer article marketing for backlinks because it is something I am fairly good at. I am not a good blog commenter!
    How good is your content? Is it top-notch, above average, fun to read?

    Then if you really want to get backlinks with power you need to consider syndication, not mass distribution to directories.

    I'm not going to go into any detail on this subject because someone else has done a much better job of it than me. Hunt down Bill Platt - TPW and go find his free ebook on Article Marketing. It may change your business ideas considerably.
    Signature
    Brain Drained...Signature Coming Soon!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3320273].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Cyberdetective
    Hi

    It really is not necessary to spin articles, there are many free places where you can obtain unique content on any subject you require. All these articles pass the copyscape test and are 30%+ unique, have them posted automatically to your blog or have them in draft option and publish manually. You can get the from Submit Your Article or UAW free of charge, as well as many others, the only requirement is that you leave the links in place. This won't harm you as you will be associated with the authors site and can arrange a reciprocol link. You can also add your links.

    You then have unique content more than adequate for SEO purposes without doing anything other than signing up for the free accounts. The problem with duplicate content is the recent change in Google's algorithm, whilst you will not be penalised as such, preference will be given by the spiders to the originator of the article meaning that if your site was 100% duplicate content it would be very difficult to achieve a high page rank for organic traffic. Of course if you obtain your traffic elsewhere it will make little difference.

    I have autoblogs which are run via RSS feeds on automatic hands free, these are review sites for Clickbank products, plenty of traffic can be obtained by finding an ezine in your niche with a subscriber list of 50,000+ you are able to send a solo ad at around $50 upwards, this brings traffic in large numbers and I normally profit on average $500 per solo ad, and it makes no difference where I rank or what Google think! I find this the easiest way to generate income, you can have 10 sites and just rinse and repeat.

    Sorry to get off track, to answer your question article spinning is normally grammatically poor and you need to re edit anyway, so easier to get free unique content or just use good quality duplicate content from other related sites. That's just my opinion of course I don't profess to be an expert.

    Regards
    CD
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3320396].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seafrontsteve
    I first tried then gave up spinning - using their automatic feature.
    Now I spin the occasional great article by hand using Spinner Chief.
    BUT, I spin with a difference and it takes time - maybe even an hour or two.
    What I do is read the article and instead of allowing the automatic word alternatives, I actually write phrase alternatives that make sense and are grammatically correct.
    The tool then allows me to create and check 100 copies with less than 50% similarity
    Not so automated and lots more work - but the end result is worth it
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3320600].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lioncirth
      There is a lot of debate when it comes to directories and if they accept the same articles, I believe most will as it is just syndication as long as the author name is the same.

      I personally do prefer to spin my articles, I will manually spin them to ensure that they are the best quality articles and make complete sense.

      I will then manually submit these to the top article directories (which have always accepted them). I will then run the article through AMR and get it listed in lower quality directories.

      As my articles are normally well spun, I can submit it to Ezine a couple of times as they are completely unique

      The best advice I can personally give is try both ways and see which you prefer.
      Signature

      Skype: lioncirth

      www.OutsourceUniqueContent.com <------ Coming Soon!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3320731].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
        Originally Posted by lioncirth View Post

        There is a lot of debate when it comes to directories and if they accept the same articles, I believe most will as it is just syndication as long as the author name is the same.
        Depends who you believe and listen to, I've heard it from Matt Cutts and Chris Knight, the owner of EZA. You can submit the same articles to other directories.

        In light of the fact some article directories don't even have an approval process and if you speak to any article marketer with a modicum of success and if you ignore what the sellers of spinning software say, it's pretty obvious that you can submit the same article to other directories.

        I've been doing it for 5 years without the slightest problem.
        Signature

        Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3320767].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author AnitaCross
          Originally Posted by Barry Unruh View Post

          How good is your content? Is it top-notch, above average, fun to read?

          Then if you really want to get backlinks with power you need to consider syndication, not mass distribution to directories.

          I'm not going to go into any detail on this subject because someone else has done a much better job of it than me. Hunt down Bill Platt - TPW and go find his free ebook on Article Marketing. It may change your business ideas considerably.
          I agree with Barry 110%!

          Well thought out, engaging articles get published in ezines and on websites, providing a much better backlink return on your time investment. By all means, get Bill Platt's free ebook on Article Marketing, you can find Bill here: TPW.

          After you've read that, you may want to look into Bill's WSO, "... Articles in 20 minutes or less." He reveals one method that will help you create several articles on the same topic without having to repeat or spin anything. There's more, but that one really stuck with me, perhaps because I need to write more, but I'm not willing to spin it.

          -Anita
          Signature
          Looking For A Short Cut To Online Retail Profits?
          OSOA on Facebook -- SimplySilk on Facebook

          Anita
          is one of several Moderators at "Live Marketing Chat"
          LMC, mixing work and fun on Saturday nights -- Google it
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3320892].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author tpw
            Originally Posted by AnitaCross View Post

            Originally Posted by Barry Unruh View Post

            How good is your content? Is it top-notch, above average, fun to read?

            Then if you really want to get backlinks with power you need to consider syndication, not mass distribution to directories.

            I'm not going to go into any detail on this subject because someone else has done a much better job of it than me. Hunt down Bill Platt - TPW and go find his free ebook on Article Marketing. It may change your business ideas considerably.

            I agree with Barry 110%!

            Well thought out, engaging articles get published in ezines and on websites, providing a much better backlink return on your time investment. By all means, get Bill Platt's free ebook on Article Marketing, you can find Bill here: TPW.

            After you've read that, you may want to look into Bill's WSO, "... Articles in 20 minutes or less." He reveals one method that will help you create several articles on the same topic without having to repeat or spin anything. There's more, but that one really stuck with me, perhaps because I need to write more, but I'm not willing to spin it.

            -Anita

            Thanks to Barry and Anita.

            My free article marketing ebook can be found here:
            Article Marketing: Beyond the Basics - Free Ebook, No Catch, No Squeeze Page

            My WSO that Anita recommends is located here:
            http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...ml#post3230291


            You will always find people who say "do spin" and a few of us who say "don't spin".

            For me, it is not a matter of business model, but retaining control of my first contact with a potential client.

            The articles I write are crafted to move the reader to take the action I want them to take.

            I spend a few extra minutes with each article to ensure that there will be a smooth transition from the article to the resource box, and I take great care to ensure that the reader will follow the link I have left in the Authors' Resource Box.

            I strongly believe that spinning an article puts that work at risk, so I never spin articles.

            People who spin articles do so to impress the search engines.

            I write articles to impress my target audience. I don't ignore the search engines, but I do write for the reader first, and touch the articles up for the search engines before syndicating the article.

            The difference is just a minute change in strategy, but I feel it makes all of the difference in the world, to the effectiveness of my articles to accomplish the stated goal of bringing real prospects to my websites.

            I don't chase search engine rankings.

            But I do chase people who are prospective customers, and in accomplishing my goal, I also succeed in impressing the search engines.
            Signature
            Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
            Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321975].message }}
        • I've been spinning but after reading this I think I'll give it a skip. The one thing I will continue to spin though is the resource box, especially the anchor text. That one is a given I'd say.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323285].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Originally Posted by TBInternetMarketing View Post

            I've been spinning but after reading this I think I'll give it a skip.
            The thread is already of real benefit to at least one person. (There are 100 other threads here you can read, on the same subject, which will confirm that decision, by the way, TB).

            Originally Posted by aj113 View Post

            A straight question: In general, does a web page with duplicate content have more chance of being consigned to the supplemental index than a web page with unique content?
            I can see from the wording on your own website, AJ, that you and I have far too substantially differing concepts of the meaning of the words "duplicate content", in this context, for such a discussion to be productive or even sensible at all, "straight question" or not! Nice try, though.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323346].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author aj113
              Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

              ....I can see from the wording on your own website, AJ, that you and I have far too substantially differing concepts of the meaning of the words "duplicate content", in this context, for such a discussion to be productive or even sensible at all, "straight question" or not! Nice try, though.
              Yep, I thought you'd dance around that one.

              I don't have any 'concept' of duplicate content. I have a standard guide; if it passes Copyscape, it's unique.

              So using the above definition Alexa, I ask again: In general, does a web page with duplicate content have more chance of being consigned to the supplemental index than a web page with unique content?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323501].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                Banned
                [DELETED]
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323518].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author aj113
                  Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                  You didn't write these misguided and ill-informed words, then? "We all know about the search engine duplicate content penalty, if your blog or website has content that exists elsewhere on the internet, your search engine rankings are likely to suffer"?
                  Yep, they're my words. And your point is what exactly? To deflect attention away from the fact that you have failed to answer my question a second time?

                  It seems to me, though, that since you're selling something, and I'm not, doing so would be all potential downside from your perspective, no? If you'll excuse the observation, it's not easy to envisage you emerging well from it, is it? :confused:
                  You have failed/refused to answer a simple, reasonable question twice. If you'll excuse the observation, it's not easy to envisage you emerging well from that, is it? :confused:

                  Shall we just agree amicably to differ, before you produce any more claims like "I don't have any 'concept' of duplicate content"?
                  Seriously Alexa I have no idea where you're going with this. "unique content" is defined by whether your content passes or fails Copyscape in my opinion. You don't need a 'concept' when you have a clear definition like that, it's black or white.

                  Perhaps you would like to give us YOUR definition of unique - or indeed - duplicate content? Or do you only have a 'concept'?
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323595].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                    Duplicate content - having the same thing on the same site over and over again.

                    Duplicate content is not having the same content on different sites, otherwise EZA would'nt advise you to do it, better still, they wouldn't create a plugin to help you do it.

                    Does that help define the duplicate content myth peddled by so many spin software sellers to sell their stuff as has been shown here?

                    Out of interest are there any people here argueing why content syndication doesn't work?

                    Hmmmm.
                    Signature

                    Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323671].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                    Banned
                    [DELETED]
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323849].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
                      Banned
                      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                      On consideration, I'm quite happy to rest my case there, thanks, on "res ipsa loquitur" grounds. It seems from my inbox, in particular, that many others had no difficulty at all grasping my point.
                      Exhibit B. Pointing to inbox messages to back your point. Very similar to the "I've tested this, so I'm right" argument.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323867].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                      On consideration, I'm quite happy to rest my case there, thanks, on "res ipsa loquitur" grounds. It seems from my inbox, in particular, that many others had no difficulty at all grasping my point.
                      I agree Alexa and I believe the point you were trying to make was educating people what duplicate content actually is, as pointed out in post #87.

                      I find it amazing it's still such a myth/sales tactic.
                      Signature

                      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323947].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
                        Banned
                        Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

                        I agree Alexa and I believe the point you were trying to make was educating people what duplicate content actually is, as pointed out in post #87.

                        I find it amazing it's still such a myth/sales tactic.
                        Your definition is actually incorrect in Google-Jargon. Duplicate content is "Duplicate content generally refers to substantive blocks of content within or across domains that either completely match other content or are appreciably similar"

                        Another snippet from that article warns to "Syndicate carefully" and " If you syndicate your content on other sites, make sure they include a link back to the original article on each syndicated article"

                        I'm not encouraging spinning, mostly because I think the pages where your article resides will be just garbage, zero pagerank pages. Little SEO value, little user value. So I would just stick it in the one place (or a few) where you are going to get the most value.

                        So in other words, if you're looking at it from strictly an SEO perspective, Spinning can be useful. But from an ROI perspective, it's likely a waste of time.

                        But realize that YOU and Google have different ideas on what is "duplicate content".
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324113].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author tpw
                          Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

                          Another snippet from that article warns to "Syndicate carefully" and " If you syndicate your content on other sites, make sure they include a link back to the original article on each syndicated article"

                          I have always thought that to be some Google smoke and mirrors...

                          If I syndicate my content, which I do, I would be giving up one of the links in my resource box to link to the original source of the article.

                          Additionally, I would be telling Google that I worship at the Altar of Google, which I don't.

                          Further, I would be risking the possibility of pissing off a prospect whose trust I just earned, if they accidentally click the wrong link and land on the article they just read.

                          Finally, they don't need me to tell them where the article is published first. They know that because they indexed it on my site first. But that does not matter to them. They don't link to the "original version" of the article, but rather the copy of the article on the site with the most "domain authority".

                          This is the kind of Spinning that Google believes in -- spinning the Public Relations about their algorithm in a way that serves them more than the people who want to rank in their search engine.
                          Signature
                          Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
                          Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324206].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
                            Banned
                            Originally Posted by tpw View Post

                            I have always thought that to be some Google smoke and mirrors...

                            If I syndicate my content, which I do, I would be giving up one of the links in my resource box to link to the original source of the article.

                            Additionally, I would be telling Google that I worship at the Altar of Google, which I don't.

                            Further, I would be risking the possibility of pissing off a prospect whose trust I just earned, if they accidentally click the wrong link and land on the article they just read.

                            Finally, they don't need me to tell them where the article is published first. They know that because they indexed it on my site first. But that does not matter to them. They don't link to the "original version" of the article, but rather the copy of the article on the site with the most "domain authority".

                            This is the kind of Spinning that Google believes in -- spinning the Public Relations about their algorithm in a way that serves them more than the people who want to rank in their search engine.
                            I don't disagree. But for all the people that say "Spinning is bad, Google says so", I am just showing them that it's not like Google is strongly in favor of syndication of the same article. I personally don't think that Spinning or Syndication will get you in trouble...at worst they'll be filtered.

                            People need to realize that articles have HORRIBLE ROI's for a large group of people. It's not the writer either, I have great ROIs for some niches and horrible for others. So when you have a niche with a horrible ROI for writing, a lot of people choose to do it strictly for SEO purposes.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324299].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                              Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

                              I don't disagree. But for all the people that say "Spinning is bad, Google says so", I am just showing them that it's not like Google is strongly in favor of syndication of the same article. I personally don't think that Spinning or Syndication will get you in trouble...at worst they'll be filtered.

                              People need to realize that articles have HORRIBLE ROI's for a large group of people. It's not the writer either, I have great ROIs for some niches and horrible for others. So when you have a niche with a horrible ROI for writing, a lot of people choose to do it strictly for SEO purposes.

                              Dave,

                              I'd politely like to draw your attention to my post at #57 where I explained I didn't care or have anything against spinning, just that spinning other peoples articles is a breach of copyright. I only know this because it was pointed out by Brian Kindsvater, an Internet Lawyer. If you disagree with with the law, take that up with a lawyer.

                              I never said spinning is bad, it just doesn't fit in with my business model. I don't however and the law agree's, that taking other peoples articles and spinning them, as other people in this thread have said is OK in other threads, is ok, is in fact not ok.

                              Articles don't have a horrible ROI for me. Maybe for others, not for me. I'd also like to point out that I never said Google doesn't like it.

                              I've only been using this method for the last 6-8 months. People like Alexa and Bill do it far better than I do but by following them, listening to them and implementing what they do, I've seen a lot of success in a short space of time. If I continue, I know I'll get more of the same. My post at #100 explains this a bit better.

                              It isn't about SEO and backlinks for me, there are other ways to do this. All it is for me, is putting my articles in front of people that are very interested in what I have to say. This provides me a very good ROI.
                              Signature

                              Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324489].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
                                Banned
                                Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

                                Dave,

                                I'd politely like to draw your attention to my post at #57 where I explained I didn't care or have anything against spinning, just that spinning other peoples articles is a breach of copyright. I only know this because it was pointed out by Brian Kindsvater, an Internet Lawyer. If you disagree with with the law, take that up with a lawyer.

                                I never said spinning is bad, it just doesn't fit in with my business model. I don't however and the law agree's, that taking other peoples articles and spinning them, as other people in this thread have said is OK in other threads, is ok, is in fact not ok.

                                Articles don't have a horrible ROI for me. Maybe for others, not for me. I'd also like to point out that I never said Google doesn't like it.

                                I've only been using this method for the last 6-8 months. People like Alexa and Bill do it far better than I do but by following them, listening to them and implementing what they do, I've seen a lot of success in a short space of time. If I continue, I know I'll get more of the same. My post at #100 explains this a bit better.

                                It isn't about SEO and backlinks for me, there are other ways to do this. All it is for me, is putting my articles in front of people that are very interested in what I have to say. This provides me a very good ROI.
                                Where did I say that it was ok to spin other people's content? I didn't. I'm talking about spinning versions of your own articles.

                                The effectiveness of articles does vary by niche. That's where the ROI question comes in. My articles on specific how-to products translate into FAR higher conversions than ones that sell a specific unsexy physical product.

                                And I think people need to realize that article writing is not ONE thing to all people. Some people view it as strictly SEO. For example, in stompernet, they view it less for Traffic and more for SEO. Writing good articles means it'll get syndicated to more real sites, which you can in turn contact and give them MORE real content unique to their site. This results in more links. Links result in higher SERP rankings. And SERP rankings convert better than direct links from articles. It's a long way around the barn.

                                Some people have the resources to submit high quality articles to limited sources and spun content across the web.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324626].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author youngworks
                                  I have read this thread with great interest...I am particularly impressed by Dave Rodman - you state your views and back with reason.
                                  I can tolerate all viewpoints, but the ones I listen to is backed by some kind of sound reasoning.
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324667].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author tpw
                                    Originally Posted by youngworks View Post

                                    I have read this thread with great interest...I am particularly impressed by Dave Rodman - you state your views and back with reason.
                                    I can tolerate all viewpoints, but the ones I listen to is backed by some kind of sound reasoning.

                                    LOL Dave...

                                    I am particularly impressed by Dave too, but only because he is a reasonable guy...

                                    Oh sorry YoungWorks... Were you saying something? I wasn't listening... :rolleyes:
                                    Signature
                                    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
                                    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324709].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                                  Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

                                  Where did I say that it was ok to spin other people's content? I didn't. I'm talking about spinning versions of your own articles.
                                  Where did I say you said that? I was referring to someone else here, that sells software that proved he does it to me, from a discussion I had in a previous thread.

                                  My response was to...

                                  Dave Rodman - I don't disagree. But for all the people that say "Spinning is bad, Google says so", I am just showing them that it's not like Google is strongly in favor of syndication of the same article
                                  I was just pointing out I'm not one that says Google thinks it's bad, I don't even think it is bad, if done in the right way.

                                  All I was doing was pointing out what I was saying, not putting words into your mouth.
                                  Signature

                                  Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3326885].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
                                    Banned
                                    Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

                                    Where did I say you said that? I was referring to someone else here, that sells software that proved he does it to me, from a discussion I had in a previous thread.

                                    My response was to...

                                    I was just pointing out I'm not one that says Google thinks it's bad, I don't even think it is bad, if done in the right way.

                                    All I was doing was pointing out what I was saying, not putting words into your mouth.
                                    Ok, my bad.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3328182].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author tpw
                              Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

                              I don't disagree. But for all the people that say "Spinning is bad, Google says so", I am just showing them that it's not like Google is strongly in favor of syndication of the same article. I personally don't think that Spinning or Syndication will get you in trouble...at worst they'll be filtered.

                              People need to realize that articles have HORRIBLE ROI's for a large group of people. It's not the writer either, I have great ROIs for some niches and horrible for others. So when you have a niche with a horrible ROI for writing, a lot of people choose to do it strictly for SEO purposes.

                              I agree with you in principle.

                              Google cannot see a difference between one or the other. They are both just words on a page. The ignore both equally.


                              The general problem I have is that people argue that article spinning is better than content syndication, because spinning will get you into Google, as if that is all that matters.

                              I have two specific issues with the story as most article spinning proponents usually tell it.

                              I have an issue because as you and I agree upon, Google is not the only game in town.

                              And two, spun articles are not a guarantee to get someone ranked in Google.

                              Article spinning is not the Savior of article marketing. It cannot save your soul or marketing plan.

                              It is just another channel of content creation.

                              Good quality content that people want to read will drive more syndication, which in turn creates more opportunity for the content to reach more eyeballs.

                              Article spinning is often used to create further iterations of content no one wanted to read in its original format either.

                              If YOU are truly profitable with article spinning, so long as you are spinning your own content, then more power to you.

                              But article spinning will never be the magic bullet it is often advertised to be.
                              Signature
                              Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
                              Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324585].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                          Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

                          Your definition is actually incorrect in Google-Jargon. Duplicate content is "Duplicate content generally refers to substantive blocks of content within or across domains that either completely match other content or are appreciably similar"

                          Another snippet from that article warns to "Syndicate carefully" and " If you syndicate your content on other sites, make sure they include a link back to the original article on each syndicated article"

                          I'm not encouraging spinning, mostly because I think the pages where your article resides will be just garbage, zero pagerank pages. Little SEO value, little user value. So I would just stick it in the one place (or a few) where you are going to get the most value.

                          So in other words, if you're looking at it from strictly an SEO perspective, Spinning can be useful. But from an ROI perspective, it's likely a waste of time.

                          But realize that YOU and Google have different ideas on what is "duplicate content".
                          Actually you're confirming my entire point.

                          "Syndicate carefully" and " If you syndicate your content on other sites, make sure they include a link back to the original article on each syndicated article"
                          That is not only exactly what I do but it is exactly the reason I do it.

                          Why else would I want my articles put on high PR homepages, with lots of highly interested readers of the niche subject I'm writing about, without a link back to my site?

                          That would defeat the whole object.

                          I'm not encouraging spinning, mostly because I think the pages where your article resides will be just garbage, zero pagerank pages. Little SEO value, little user value. So I would just stick it in the one place (or a few) where you are going to get the most value.
                          This I fully agree with with.

                          That's why I don't use article marketing purely for the SEO perspective, I have a number of other means I use for SEO.

                          Article marketing I use much more to get an extremely interested and targeted audience reading my articles and coming to my site. I use authority sites with lots of readers to come to my offer.

                          Remember the the old saying - "Find a hungry crowd"?

                          So in other words, if you're looking at it from strictly an SEO perspective, Spinning can be useful. But from an ROI perspective, it's likely a waste of time.
                          Agreed.

                          But realize that YOU and Google have different ideas on what is "duplicate content"
                          That would depend entirely on how you interpret Matt Cutt's own words, not just in public but on his blog. It would also mean that EZA's terms of service are promotining duplicate content, as is their fancy pants new Wordpress plugin, that allows you to publish your article on your own site, then automatically upload it to EZA, unchanged.

                          I think you need to speak to Chris Knight and all the other article directories, not me...and tell them they don't understand duplicate content, not me.
                          Signature

                          Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324241].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author aj113
                      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                      On consideration, I'm quite happy to rest my case there, thanks, on "res ipsa loquitur" grounds.
                      Yep a third refusal as expected.
                      It seems from my inbox, in particular, that many others had no difficulty at all grasping my point.
                      Wow well that decides it then, you MUST be right - especially since you placed a winking emoticon at the end there, that definitely gives you the edge.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324169].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author theemperor
            Spinning is useful if you want to generate articles on a similar topic quickly for SEO purposes.

            It is a little black hat, because you are aiming to dominate different spots in Google but with essentially the same content.

            However from a selfish point of view, it should get you more traffic. It's no worse than much of the other black hat that people love, such as buying backlink packets or auto blogging.

            You could get 100 spins from a single spintax-article. I believe it would take longer to write 100 unique articles not spun than to create the spintax ready one.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323352].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author indiatext
    I personally believe...its better to go for writing a new article in spite of spinning the same...it has given me better result and for me its less time consuming too...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3320962].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author hezell1989
    I just dont like spinning anymore. I believe quality articles are better then quanity
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3320970].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lioncirth
      Originally Posted by hezell1989 View Post

      I just dont like spinning anymore. I believe quality articles are better then quanity
      Just because something is spun doesnt meant its not good quality. fair enough if you just click a "spin" button then it will be pretty bad, if you manually spin it then you can create good quality articles
      Signature

      Skype: lioncirth

      www.OutsourceUniqueContent.com <------ Coming Soon!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321349].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author hezell1989
        Originally Posted by lioncirth View Post

        Just because something is spun doesnt meant its not good quality. fair enough if you just click a "spin" button then it will be pretty bad, if you manually spin it then you can create good quality articles
        well thats usually the first thing that comes to mind when i hear spinning articles. some spun articles by software make no sense at all
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321371].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by lioncirth View Post

        Jif you manually spin it then you can create good quality articles
        Personally, I can create better ones, and much more easily, just by writing a new one.

        A syndicated (identical) copy of an article produces exactly the same backlink as a spun one. Even the "pro-spinners" admit this (as they surely must, without rightly being ridiculed), so whatever the alleged benefit is of spinning, it has absolutely nothing to do with backlinks at all. A backlink in Google's "supplemental index" carries exactly the same weight as a backlink in its "main index".

        In other words, even if your assertion above is true (which, for me, it isn't anyway), it still wouldn't necessarily mean that there's any benefit from spinning. :rolleyes:
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321393].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

          A backlink in Google's "supplemental index" carries exactly the same weight as a backlink in its "main index".

          In other words, even if your assertion above is true (which, for me, it isn't anyway), it still wouldn't necessarily mean that there's any benefit from spinning. :rolleyes:
          Actually that's not true at all. By definition, the problem with Supplemental Pages is a lack of pagerank. So you'd always want a page that's in the Main Index as opposed to the Supplemental Index. If it's in the S.I., then you have a problem. Back when the SI was visible, a number of SEO's found that pages that were in the SI were not being crawled fully. So there' a good chance your wouldn't even count because it wasn't seen.

          Here's what Matt Cutts says on his blog:

          It's perfectly normal for a website to have pages in our main web index and our supplemental index. If a page doesn't have enough PageRank to be included in our main web index, the supplemental results represent an additional chance for users to find that page, as opposed to Google not indexing the page.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321693].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

            Here's what Matt Cutts says on his blog:
            Thanks, Dave: I'm very familar with it, actually. It doesn't detract from or conflict with what I've said at all. You and I have discussed this very point before and this time (as previously) you've missed the point. Never mind. :rolleyes:
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321746].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

              Thanks, Dave: I'm very familar with it, actually. It doesn't detract from or conflict with what I've said at all. You and I have discussed this very point before and this time (as previously) you've missed the point. Never mind. :rolleyes:
              I don't really see how your point is justified, yet you keep bringing it up. If you're saying that, all things being equal, pages from the S.I. and Main Index are viewed the same, then you're still wrong. For 2 reasons...

              1) Pages from the S.I. have less pagerank than Main Index Pages.
              2) Pages from the S.I. aren't crawled completely, meaning your link might not even be cached by Google.

              So, by definition, they aren't viewed the same.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321812].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                Banned
                Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

                I don't really see how your point is justified.
                It seems that many others do, Dave, in many other threads. I'll just have to content myself with that, in the circumstances.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321846].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                  It seems that many others do, Dave, in many other threads. I'll just have to content myself with that, in the circumstances.
                  A+B=C. I don't care how many people in threads say otherwise.

                  A=Main index pages have more pagerank.
                  B=Links from pages with more pagerank pass more pagerank
                  C=Links from Main Index pages are more valuable than S.I. pages.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321909].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

                    I don't care how many people in threads say otherwise.
                    That's among the reasons why several Warriors find it less than a pleasure discussing such issues with you, Dave: sometimes your interest in what anyone else has to say appears to be so minimal that trying to explain anything to you feels a little like banging one's head against a brick wall and leaves people inevitably concluding that they have better things to do. I've had a couple of p.m.'s just in the last 5 minutes reminding me of the futility of attempting any intelligent discussion under these circumstances, so I'll leave you to it, if you'll excuse me. Knock yourself out.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321994].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
                      Banned
                      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                      That's among the reasons why several Warriors find it less than a pleasure discussing such issues with you, Dave.
                      So if I see clear misinformation then I should let it go for the sake of harmony?
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322017].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author tpw
                        Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

                        So if I see clear misinformation then I should let it go for the sake of harmony?

                        Just because you disagree with the point of view, does not mean that it is "misinformation". It simply means that you hold a different opinion.

                        If ever you find yourself disagreeing with what I have said, it only means that you disagree with me. It does not mean that I am wrong or that you are wrong. It only indicates that we disagree.

                        As in the statement above, when you attempt to inflect that you are the only one telling the truth, that can be annoying to many people, even the persons whose opinion you are attempting to influence.

                        You don't annoy me, but then again, I hardly ever notice you. I am not sure that is a good thing or a bad thing for you... I just know that is the way it is...
                        Signature
                        Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
                        Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322116].message }}
                        • I disagree with those you think that quality spinning is a waste.

                          Taking one piece of content and producing hundreds of good, quality unique versions and then syndicating them is extremely powerful for backlinking and proper SEO.

                          If this didn't work and wasn't powerful then article directories, blog networks, and such would not be nearly as effective.

                          It does work.

                          I think the issue here is that, we are all having to satisfy Google and our visitors at the same time, spinning is useful because of Google, good, quality content is useful for our readers.

                          Drop the ball in either place and you're results suffer greatly.

                          Again -- crap is crap, whether original or spun. That is key, and don't be lazy...if you spin, spin slowly and carefully...make the content quality!

                          I hope we can all agree on that much?? Quality = Good???

                          If President Obama and Bill O'Reilly can go on TV together on Super Sunday...then, can't we all just get along?!?!?!?

                          Hugs and kisses, everyone. LOL
                          Signature



                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322190].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author aj113
                            Originally Posted by Garage Media View Post

                            .....
                            Again -- crap is crap, whether original or spun. ...
                            Agree totally. Many people seem to think 'spun' equals 'crap'.

                            It may be the case that many spun articles articles are crap, but that is only because the operater of the software does not have the ability to write well.

                            Posessing and using a spinner does not suddenly give you a magical ability to write good quality copy. If you can't do it without a spinner, you certainly can't do it with one.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322286].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author lioncirth
                              From my original post I did state that I manually spin my articles.

                              if you do it properly (and not just press a button!) then you will get good quality articles that are unique.

                              As aj113 did say, you would then be able to submit several versions to Ezine - if you did it write they would be completely different articles just based around the same subject.
                              Signature

                              Skype: lioncirth

                              www.OutsourceUniqueContent.com <------ Coming Soon!

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322302].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
                            Originally Posted by Garage Media View Post

                            It does work.
                            Michael (nice name, btw ),

                            The debate isn't over whether or not spun articles can be used for SEO (or other purposes); it's over whether or not there are benefits to using spun, unique content over non-spun, identically syndicated content, and whether the time and/or expense required to have it spun can be justified.

                            So many people believe they're reaping the benefits of spinning when used for the purpose of acquiring backlinks, for example, when the reality is that they're gaining nothing from it at all - and in some cases they'd do better without it. But they don't realise this, because they're too afraid or lazy to test for themselves. Some are just too scared to adopt a different stance to that which is most popularly assumed and perpetuated by an apparent majority.

                            Some try to justify spinning using backwards, flawed logic, based on mythical "facts". Sometimes their arguments can be very convincing to those who don't know better, but they are selective about the facts they choose to present in order to prove their point - conveniently electing to leave out those which would void, disprove or undermine their claims, or at least leave room for debate over the issue.

                            But even if it's debated, there'll always be people on both sides of the fence. It's an argument that will never be resolved.

                            I know where I stand (and I've used spun content before, too): from a backlinking perspective, I receive no measurable benefits from spinning my articles. I can't justify the time it takes to do it, nor the expense of paying others to do it for me. And spun articles would actually undermine the goal I have for my articles.

                            The only time I would spin is if I wanted/needed multiple copies of essentially the same article ranking highly in the SERPs for the same search-query. And I don't do that, because it'd require too much backlinking work to each of those pages - many of which likely wouldn't even be on my own sites, meaning I'd not want to spend time backlinking to them, anyway.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322493].message }}
                            • Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post


                              I know where I stand (and I've used spun content before, too): from a backlinking perspective, I receive no measurable benefits from spinning my articles. I can't justify the time it takes to do it, nor the expense of paying others to do it for me. And spun articles would actually undermine the goal I have for my articles.
                              I have observed different results...but we all have very different methods, different niches, different keywords, different LSI keywords throw in, different anchor texts, different blog networks, different article directories, different linking networks and schemes -- the list goes on and on.

                              And you are RIGHT...test it yourself, don't follow the sheep, that is the best advice anyone can give!!!
                              Signature



                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322529].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                              Banned
                              Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

                              So many people believe they're reaping the benefits of spinning when used for the purpose of acquiring backlinks, for example, when the reality is that they're gaining nothing from it at all - and in some cases they'd do better without it. But they don't realise this, because they're too afraid or lazy to test for themselves. Some are just too scared to adopt a different stance to that which is most popularly assumed and perpetuated by an apparent majority.

                              Some try to justify spinning using backwards, flawed logic, based on mythical "facts". Sometimes their arguments can be very convincing to those who don't know better, but they are selective about the facts they choose to present in order to prove their point - conveniently electing to leave out those which would void, disprove or undermine their claims, or at least leave room for debate over the issue.
                              Beautifully put. Really ... an outstanding, accurate, perceptive, realistic summary. I wish I'd said that (and might do, next time) ...
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322538].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
                                Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                                Beautifully put. Really ... an outstanding, accurate, perceptive, realistic summary. I wish I'd said that (and might do, next time) ...
                                Thanks, lol.

                                A very flattering compliment, indeed - especially coming from you, Ms. wordSmith.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322634].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                              Well here we are again.

                              The good old famous knife fight. I do enjoy these posts.

                              So, as I always do, with my favourite nemesis here, let us get some small matters cleared up.

                              Here's my two cents, for whatever it's worth.

                              If you read what I've said in the past regarding spinning, primarily from what I've learned and heard from Warriorkay. I'm not anti spinning. Let me explain...

                              If you take your own article and this is very important, your own article and spin it, that's just fine, I don't care. That's your business model and I have mine. What you do is fine by me. There are many arguements for it and many against.

                              I'm not saying it's lazy it just isn't in line with my plans, if it's in line with yours, good for you. I salute you.

                              My problem is, when other people, as they often do and advise others to do, steal my hard work and spin it.

                              That is against the law.

                              Title 17 US Code Section 106, and section 101 defining "derivative work".
                              This isn't me speaking, it's an Internet Lawyer and a very good one too. Brian Kindsvater.

                              What amazes me is there doesn't seem to be a single arguement as to why my business model, syndication, on high PR content relevant authority PR sites is bad.

                              I often wonder if it's because there's never been a piece of software developed to make it simpler.

                              Garagemedia - It's funny, so many people don't spin because they are lazy, lazy as the day is long.

                              Lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy.

                              Good spinning is an art, and takes a lot of time, it's not push button.
                              So because I don't spin and I write my own, that's lazy and not an art?

                              Didn't you write your first article you spun? If not and you took someone else's, I'd seriously seek the advice of an Internet Lawyer, unless of course you know better.
                              Signature

                              Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322635].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                                Banned
                                Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

                                The good old famous knife fight. I do enjoy these posts.
                                Oooh, well ... anything to oblige.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322704].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Jenny Willapana
                                This is a knock down drag out thread, isn't it??

                                Spinning does work (in my opinion), as it has been said -- if you re-write carefully sentence by sentence and change some synonyms as well.

                                Maybe that's not quite spinning? Now, we're getting into semantics.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322924].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author aj113
                              Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

                              ...... I receive no measurable benefits from spinning my articles. ....
                              So you've actually tried submitting multiple copies of the same article to one directory?
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322639].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
                                Originally Posted by aj113 View Post

                                So you've actually tried submitting multiple copies of the same article to one directory?
                                No, because my primary purpose for submitting to directories isn't for their backlinks - it's for syndication of my articles to other sites (from which the backlinks are typically far more valuable, anyway, for numerous reasons).

                                Not to mention that past a certain point, multiple backlinks from the same site seem to diminish in value. What'd be the benefit to me of having 100 spun articles on one directory, "for the backlinks", when they're no longer contributing much of anything (if anything at all) to my rankings?

                                Sometimes I submit to a single directory multiple articles discussing more or less the same subject, but I will write each from scratch, and there'll always be different points made in each - not just the same thing said countless different ways.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322749].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author aj113
                                  Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

                                  No, because my primary purpose for submitting to directories isn't for their backlinks - it's for syndication of my articles to other sites (from which the backlinks are typically far more valuable, anyway, for numerous reasons).
                                  OK, so you have a different primary purpose to many other people.

                                  Sometimes I submit to a single directory multiple articles discussing more or less the same subject, but I will write each from scratch, and there'll always be different points made in each - not just the same thing said countless different ways.
                                  For what purpose?
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322854].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
                                    Originally Posted by aj113 View Post

                                    For what purpose?
                                    What do you mean? :confused:

                                    The point is that although there is sometimes a certain amount of overlap between some of the points made in each article I write, the overall "lesson" conveyed - the purpose of each - is different.

                                    Spinning doesn't (or shouldn't) alter the underlying substance/point of an article (although it sometimes does, in a negative way, because the resulting articles make comparatively little sense!) - it just rewords it. And for the purpose of article syndication, and all the benefits that carries - backlinks being among them - I simply don't need to submit multiple copies of the same article to the same directory.

                                    Why would I do that? For the sake of diversity? What are the odds, anyway, that someone looking to republish my article would take one rewritten by a machine, over the higher-quality, better-flowing original, which would almost certainly be more of a pleasure to read not only for them, but for their site's visitors?

                                    The same, unchanged article, when republished, brings exactly the same backlink value, regardless of whether it goes in the supplemental index or the main index, on someone else's site.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323221].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
                          Banned
                          Originally Posted by tpw View Post

                          Just because you disagree with the point of view, does not mean that it is "misinformation". It simply means that you hold a different opinion.

                          If ever you find yourself disagreeing with what I have said, it only means that you disagree with me. It does not mean that I am wrong or that you are wrong. It only indicates that we disagree.

                          As in the statement above, when you attempt to inflect that you are the only one telling the truth, that can be annoying to many people, even the persons whose opinion you are attempting to influence.

                          You don't annoy me, but then again, I hardly ever notice you. I am not sure that is a good thing or a bad thing for you... I just know that is the way it is...
                          99% of my posts, I don't disagree with anyone. I just put in my 2cents. I only disagree and label things as misinformation when the evidence clearly suggests that it's not the case. And I only push it further when the person I'm challenging chooses to fall back on the old standby's like "Oh, you're missing the point" or "My testing suggests otherwise".

                          And it doesn't bother me if you don't notice me, I'm not selling products like you so it's less important to me. And I can't really say that I notice anyone's posts in particular, including yours. So no offense taken.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322260].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author tpw
                            Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

                            99% of my posts, I don't disagree with anyone. I just put in my 2cents. I only disagree and label things as misinformation when the evidence clearly suggests that it's not the case. And I only push it further when the person I'm challenging chooses to fall back on the old standby's like "Oh, you're missing the point" or "My testing suggests otherwise".

                            I never revert to "Oh, you're missing the point", but "My testing suggests otherwise" is often a valid point.

                            It is one thing to have an opinion, but to test that opinion in the real world does have value, if it is done right.

                            Testing should be done with the precision of a clinical test, where all other factors are eliminated.

                            I have been in discussions here at the forum about a "new SEO tool" that is all the rage.

                            The tool does in fact create pages with links back to the target domain.

                            But the tool is touted as an SEO tool, yet Google does not acknowledge those links, and Yahoo only acknowledges two of the 2500+ links.

                            "My testing suggests" a different outcome than most of the people recommending the product.

                            I tested it on a clean domain, that had no other promotion on it. It was a clean test.

                            Those who argue for its value have mostly suggested that they have tested it, but only on domains that they are doing other types of promotions.

                            They state their opinion, to which I respond, "My testing suggests otherwise".

                            Does that make me automatically wrong?

                            It does not.

                            Does the fact that they have tested in an unclean environment mean that they are wrong?

                            It does not.

                            I simply provide a compelling argument against the cheerleaders of the tool. I want to give readers of those threads a different point of view to consider.

                            And every time I do so, I meet people in the thread who are willing to say that they don't care if it provided no real value in my clinical test, because as one lady said, "what do I have to lose, besides a half an hour of my time."

                            I could not argue against that reasoning.

                            If you are willing to waste a half hour of your time, who am I to tell you that you are wrong to do so.

                            I will never use the tool again, but that does not mean that you shouldn't use it.

                            My voice answers those who want to know the results of clinical testing. And it provides nothing more than a thorn to those who are willing to grasp any straw.

                            But in the end, all readers will decide whether the tool is right for them or not, based on their own needs and willingness to believe in magical Google fairies.

                            I want more test results that have been compared in a relatively clean environment, if we are talking about SEO. Others want us to sell them the dream. Whatever works best for you is the right answer.



                            Once again, I simply disagree with those folks. Does it make me wrong? Or, does it make them wrong? Neither.

                            We simply disagree on what an effective use of our time will be in the promotion of our websites.

                            When all is said and done, Dave Rodman is able to express his opinion, and Bill Platt is able to express his opinion.

                            Some people will follow Dave's logic and do as he recommends. And others will follow Bill's logic and do as he recommends.

                            There are many things in this life for which there will never be a right or a wrong. There are just differing opinions about whether they are right or wrong for the individual asking the question.

                            Right or Wrong is always in the eye of the beholder.

                            "Misinformation" suggests that you are right and others are wrong.

                            And that my friend is only a matter of opinion.
                            Signature
                            Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
                            Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322516].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
                              Banned
                              Originally Posted by tpw View Post

                              I never revert to "Oh, you're missing the point", but "My testing suggests otherwise" is often a valid point.

                              It is one thing to have an opinion, but to test that opinion in the real world does have value, if it is done right.
                              Well I wasn't referring to you. And I don't have a problem with the "My testing suggests otherwise". Realistically, if you REALLY want to know something, you SHOULD test it. I just think most people use it as an escape hatch when they are engaged in an argument. If someone presents a point, the other person knows they can just say "Oh, well I've tested this and I've found otherwise".

                              I'll admit, I'm a skeptic. And I know that MOST people don't test. So that's why I find it interesting when all the sudden people have conducted tests on obscure topics when they're asked for evidence on their claim. I DO believe that people test things on their own site (Price, offer, headlines, etc). I find it less likely that people are doing SE testing. And even less likely that they are doing it correctly.
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322622].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
                                Originally Posted by aj113 View Post

                                Whether people agree or not, there IS a duplicate content penalty, it's called the supplemental index. The supplemental index is not a duplicate content penalty as not only duplicate content gets put there.

                                If your page is in the supplemental index, no-one is going to read it. Absolutely wrong. Many of us get traffic from other sources than Google.

                                If your content is unique, it will not be in the supplemental index, and there is a chance people will read it. Again, not true. Unique content is not a guarantee to stay out of the supplemental index. There are only so many pages shown for any result so it stands to reason that the remainder will be in the supplemental index by default.

                                If you spin your content properly, it will be both unique and good quality. It may be decent quality and readable, but it will not be unique. Passing Copyscape may mean the wording is unique; the content is not.

                                Those people who say that spinning is not necessary seem to me to be people who don't want their 'noble art' threatened in any way. Not necessarily. Many people just hate to see people being misled into thinking that spinning is required. It's not in the least. Many of us see that as completely unnecessary extra work.

                                No, it's not necessary, but good spinners are tools which can automate a time-intensive process, and thus add value - especially to your bank balance. Only if you feel that you MUST spin or rewrite your content. Many of us save a lot of time by just not doing this to begin with.
                                Comments enclosed in the quote to make things easier.

                                Tina
                                Signature
                                Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
                                Fast & Easy Content Creation
                                ***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322663].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author aj113
                                  Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises View Post

                                  Originally Posted by aj113
                                  The supplemental index is not a duplicate content penalty as not only duplicate content gets put there.
                                  Right, so you would agree then that if your content is unique, then it cannot be included in the supplemental index on the grounds of being duplicate?

                                  If your page is in the supplemental index, no-one is going to read it. Absolutely wrong. Many of us get traffic from other sources than Google.
                                  I kept that short on the grounds of brevity. Allow me to rephrase: If your page is in the supplemental index, no-one is going to read it as a result of appearing in Google's SERPS.

                                  If your content is unique, it will not be in the supplemental index, and there is a chance people will read it. Again, not true. Unique content is not a guarantee to stay out of the supplemental index...
                                  Ok agreed, however, it IS a guarantee that your page will NOT be in the supplemental index on the grounds of it being duplicate.

                                  If you spin your content properly, it will be both unique and good quality. It may be decent quality and readable, but it will not be unique. Passing Copyscape may mean the wording is unique; the content is not.
                                  Semantics. It serves the purpose for which it was intended. That is what is important.
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322934].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
                                    Banned
                                    While we're on the topic of the supplemental index, it's important to note that it no longer exists. The first stage was taking it out of public view, the second stage was merging the 2 (supplemental and main).

                                    In the past, if a search produced less than 1000 results, it would retrieve from the S.I. Basically, it was the last resort. Now, you're in the game for any search result.

                                    But supplemental index or no supplemental index, the problem is the same for most Spun (or unique) articles. Most don't have enough pagerank to matter anyways.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323190].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author AnitaCross
                                      Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

                                      But supplemental index or no supplemental index, the problem is the same for most Spun (or unique) articles. Most don't have enough pagerank to matter anyways.
                                      Now that I've read this post, I still maintain that Page Rank is no longer the all important factor it use to be.

                                      -Anita
                                      Signature
                                      Looking For A Short Cut To Online Retail Profits?
                                      OSOA on Facebook -- SimplySilk on Facebook

                                      Anita
                                      is one of several Moderators at "Live Marketing Chat"
                                      LMC, mixing work and fun on Saturday nights -- Google it
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324367].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
                                        Banned
                                        Originally Posted by AnitaCross View Post

                                        Now that I've read this post, I still maintain that Page Rank is no longer the all important factor it use to be.

                                        -Anita
                                        If you define pagerank as the green pixels in the toolbar, then I might agree. But what is your basis for thinking pagerank is not an important factor for ranking?

                                        And if you DO think it's not an important factor, then does that mean you'd trade a PR0 link for a link off your the highest PR page of your site?

                                        I didn't think so.
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324597].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author AnitaCross
                                          Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

                                          If you define pagerank as the green pixels in the toolbar, then I might agree. But what is your basis for thinking pagerank is not an important factor for ranking?
                                          First, I did not say Page Rank wasn't important. I said it wasn't "the all important factor it use to be." I believe every ranking factor is important, including link popularity. We just don't know what all of them are.

                                          I think it's sad that so many fixate on "Page Rank" as if it's the holy grail of SEO, it's such a lop-sided view. There are so many other things they can do to optimize their sites, for both making money and bringing in targeted traffic.

                                          Google is interested in relevancy. If everything else is equal, the page with the higher Page Rank will have a higher position in the results. But how often is everything else equal? Google may not always get it right, but they strive to return pages that are what the searcher is looking for.

                                          Search results frequently have pages with lower Page Rank in higher positions than those with higher Page Rank. It's a matter of relevancy.

                                          Links are important. And if they give you a bump with the search engines, great. But if they bring you traffic that translates into money in your bank account, so much the better.

                                          Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

                                          And if you DO think it's not an important factor, then does that mean you'd trade a PR0 link for a link off your the highest PR page of your site?

                                          I didn't think so.
                                          Ha! You know what they say about assuming! (ass-u-me)

                                          Point of fact, I haven't cared about a site's PR for years.

                                          I link to sites based on what the site or page has to offer to my visitors. I've refused link exchanges with higher PR sites because my photography site has nothing to do with their niche. In determining if I want to link to a site, I check for red flags that the site might be considered a bad neighborhood.

                                          So if you happen to have a photography niche site with a PR0, that follows Google's webmaster guidelines, let me know. I have no problem linking to you. No reciprocal link required.

                                          -Anita
                                          Signature
                                          Looking For A Short Cut To Online Retail Profits?
                                          OSOA on Facebook -- SimplySilk on Facebook

                                          Anita
                                          is one of several Moderators at "Live Marketing Chat"
                                          LMC, mixing work and fun on Saturday nights -- Google it
                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3325023].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                                    Banned
                                    [DELETED]
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323214].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author aj113
                                      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                                      .... which is a definition many of the more experienced, more successful article marketing Warriors don't share at all. :rolleyes: :p
                                      .... and that's defining the terms "experienced" and "successful" circularly, to suit your own definition.

                                      ....fiction, and an urban myth of internet marketing propagated by (a) people selling spinning software, and (b) others gullible enough to believe them.
                                      A straight question: In general, does a web page with duplicate content have more chance of being consigned to the supplemental index than a web page with unique content?
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323282].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author AnitaCross
                              Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

                              By definition, the problem with Supplemental Pages is a lack of pagerank. So you'd always want a page that's in the Main Index as opposed to the Supplemental Index. If it's in the S.I., then you have a problem. Back when the SI was visible, a number of SEO's found that pages that were in the SI were not being crawled fully. So there' a good chance your wouldn't even count because it wasn't seen.

                              Here's what Matt Cutts says on his blog:
                              It's perfectly normal for a website to have pages in our main web index and our supplemental index. If a page doesn't have enough PageRank to be included in our main web index, the supplemental results represent an additional chance for users to find that page, as opposed to Google not indexing the page.
                              For the record, your quote of Matt Cutts is from a post dated May 1, 2007 (Google Hell) There have been a lot of changes at Google, as well at the other search engines, in the nearly four years since that post.

                              In this more recent post from Google webmaster central, Google states:
                              Google's technology has improved over time, and now we're able to crawl and index sites with greater frequency. With our entire web index fresher and more up to date, the "Supplemental Results" label outlived its usefulness. ~Google, updated 10/09/2010
                              Also at Google webmaster central, one webmaster asks "What's the best way to get pages out of the supplemental index?" The following comment from March 2010, rated Best Answer by a Google employee, states:
                              Keep in mind that the Supplemental Index isn't the black hole of search that it used to be. Google revamped their treatment of the Supplemental Index several months ago so that those pages are more likely to be blended in with the regular index. So you don't need to be obsessively concerned with it.

                              In general, pages fall into the Supplemental Index for overall quality issues. Either they have too little PageRank, too little unique content, or too little content at all. ~RamboRick, March 29, 2010
                              Although it is no longer true, Google's Webmaster Guidelines use to indicate the number of factors they took into account when ranking a page for any given search query. The last value I saw before they stopped publishing it was "over 200". (I really wish I had thought to do a screen capture...)

                              The days when Page Rank heavily influenced the SERPs are long gone. Whether or not Google gives Page Rank more weight than the other factors, Google's not saying. But even if they do, with literally hundreds of factors being taken into account, the bump is just not significant enough to be worth chasing.

                              Forget about Page Rank and concentrate on giving real people what they're looking for, whether it is in the articles you write or the products or services you sell. Don't be shy about asking for links, but seek those links based on the targeted traffic they will bring to your site.

                              If you provide real value in your articles, most of them will end up published on far more than just the article directories. That means more and better quality links, and more people who are likely to follow those links.

                              Ultimately, it's all about the money, right? You want people to end up on your pages and take a specific action that results directly or indirectly in you making money--join your list, become a member, buy your product, engage your services, click on the ads, etc.

                              If spinning articles results in you making money, then the answer for you is "yes, spin those articles." However, if you aren't seeing any monetary return in your investment, be it time or money, then you should consider investing your time and money elsewhere.

                              Oh, my. I never intended to write a book!

                              -Anita
                              Signature
                              Looking For A Short Cut To Online Retail Profits?
                              OSOA on Facebook -- SimplySilk on Facebook

                              Anita
                              is one of several Moderators at "Live Marketing Chat"
                              LMC, mixing work and fun on Saturday nights -- Google it
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324230].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
                                Banned
                                Originally Posted by AnitaCross View Post

                                For the record, your quote of Matt Cutts is from a post dated May 1, 2007 (Google Hell) There have been a lot of changes at Google, as well at the other search engines, in the nearly four years since that post.

                                In this more recent post from Google webmaster central, Google states:
                                Google's technology has improved over time, and now we're able to crawl and index sites with greater frequency. With our entire web index fresher and more up to date, the "Supplemental Results" label outlived its usefulness. ~Google, updated 10/09/2010
                                Also at Google webmaster central, one webmaster asks "What's the best way to get pages out of the supplemental index?" The following comment from March 2010, rated Best Answer by a Google employee, states:
                                Keep in mind that the Supplemental Index isn't the black hole of search that it used to be. Google revamped their treatment of the Supplemental Index several months ago so that those pages are more likely to be blended in with the regular index. So you don't need to be obsessively concerned with it.

                                In general, pages fall into the Supplemental Index for overall quality issues. Either they have too little PageRank, too little unique content, or too little content at all. ~RamboRick, March 29, 2010
                                Although it is no longer true, Google's Webmaster Guidelines use to indicate the number of factors they took into account when ranking a page for any given search query. The last value I saw before they stopped publishing it was "over 200". (I really wish I had thought to do a screen capture...)

                                The days when Page Rank heavily influenced the SERPs are long gone. Whether or not Google gives Page Rank more weight than the other factors, Google's not saying. But even if they do, with literally hundreds of factors being taken into account, the bump is just not significant enough to be worth chasing.

                                Forget about Page Rank and concentrate on giving real people what they're looking for, whether it is in the articles you write or the products or services you sell. Don't be shy about asking for links, but seek those links based on the targeted traffic they will bring to your site.

                                If you provide real value in your articles, most of them will end up published on far more than just the article directories. That means more and better quality links, and more people who are likely to follow those links.

                                Ultimately, it's all about the money, right? You want people to end up on your pages and take a specific action that results directly or indirectly in you making money--join your list, become a member, buy your product, engage your services, click on the ads, etc.

                                If spinning articles results in you making money, then the answer for you is "yes, spin those articles." However, if you aren't seeing any monetary return in your investment, be it time or money, then you should consider investing your time and money elsewhere.

                                Oh, my. I never intended to write a book!

                                -Anita
                                I know things have changed. That's what I talked about in Post #72. The S.I. was just a hack while they merged the main and Supplemental index. But it doesn't mean that a non-ranking article and a page in the old S.I. don't have the same problems.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324275].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author AnitaCross
                                  Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

                                  I know things have changed. That's what I talked about in Post #72. The S.I. was just a hack while they merged the main and Supplemental index. But it doesn't mean that a non-ranking article and a page in the old S.I. don't have the same problems.
                                  I didn't see #72 until after I wrote and posted #99... it takes time to look up all that stuff...
                                  -Anita
                                  Signature
                                  Looking For A Short Cut To Online Retail Profits?
                                  OSOA on Facebook -- SimplySilk on Facebook

                                  Anita
                                  is one of several Moderators at "Live Marketing Chat"
                                  LMC, mixing work and fun on Saturday nights -- Google it
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324329].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
                      Banned
                      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                      That's among the reasons why several Warriors find it less than a pleasure discussing such issues with you, Dave: sometimes your interest in what anyone else has to say appears to be so minimal that trying to explain anything to you feels a little like banging one's head against a brick wall and leaves people inevitably concluding that they have better things to do. I've had a couple of p.m.'s just in the last 5 minutes reminding me of the futility of attempting any intelligent discussion under these circumstances, so I'll leave you to it, if you'll excuse me. Knock yourself out.
                      Ah, the old "futility of attempting any intelligent discussion under these circumstances" fallback.

                      I've argued with people, had them present other evidence, and said "Oh, that's a good point". But they usually have to present other evidence in order to sway me.

                      Your argument was the equivalent of saying "you're missing the point". So, in my book, you didn't have any evidence you could give.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322310].message }}
                • It's funny, so many people don't spin because they are lazy, lazy as the day is long.

                  Lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy.

                  Good spinning is an art, and takes a lot of time, it's not push button.

                  And, yes, it works. Google's algo is not as smart as people give it credit.

                  Words of wisdom -- quality is quality, crap is crap, whether it's original content or spun content.

                  I'm amazed at how lazy some people are...and amazed at how hopelessly crappy most "professional content" writers are...amazed at people who think they can get a good article for $5.

                  Lazy + crappy = sad results.

                  My list really goes on and on, doesn't it??...must be Monday. Yep.

                  GM
                  Signature



                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321985].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author perpetual
                    Originally Posted by Garage Media View Post

                    It's funny, so many people don't spin because they are lazy, lazy as the day is long.

                    Lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy.

                    Good spinning is an art, and takes a lot of time, it's not push button.

                    And, yes, it works. Google's algo is not as smart as people give it credit.

                    Words of wisdom -- quality is quality, crap is crap, whether it's original content or spun content.

                    I'm amazed at how lazy some people are...and amazed at how hopelessly crappy most "professional content" writers are...amazed at people who think they can get a good article for $5.

                    Lazy + crappy = sad results.

                    My list really goes on and on, doesn't it??...must be Monday. Yep.

                    GM
                    I agree with you thanks
                    Signature

                    Bill "The Resource Guy" Newland
                    Bill@TheResourceGuy.com
                    Skype ID: etal2000
                    Phone #: +1(214)556-4223
                    Support: http://www.ResourceGuys.com/support

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322781].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BudgetSEO
    Spin - when you've a costly software which everyone isn't using

    Not Spin - When you can't afford plan 1
    Signature
    Let me Secure your wordpress website for the price of a small Pizza
    Weather Balloons Election Supplies
    If you need the ''cheapest'' quote, don't waste your time contacting me.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321442].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      Originally Posted by BudgetSEO View Post

      Spin - when you've a costly software which everyone isn't using

      Not Spin - When you can't afford plan 1
      Can you explain exactly what the benefits to you are of spinning?
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321459].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author BudgetSEO
        Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

        Can you explain exactly what the benefits to you are of spinning?
        I have built a custom software with the help of a software programmer, which is exclusively for our company . We sell a service where we spin 1 seed article 1500 times, each is 90% unique (yes it is) and readable
        Now thats the benefit
        We submit the articles to directories using our accounts, majority get approved.
        I hope that helps,
        Regards,
        -S
        Signature
        Let me Secure your wordpress website for the price of a small Pizza
        Weather Balloons Election Supplies
        If you need the ''cheapest'' quote, don't waste your time contacting me.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321471].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
          Originally Posted by BudgetSEO View Post

          I have built a custom software with the help of a software programmer, which is exclusively for our company . We sell a service where we spin 1 seed article 1500 times, each is 90% unique (yes it is) and readable
          Now thats the benefit
          We submit the articles to directories using our accounts, majority get approved.
          I hope that helps,
          Regards,
          -S
          It certainly does help.

          I'm just trying to ascertain how you're doing things. So, if I'm right you'll submit 1500 versions of the same article to every directory?

          That's a lot of backlinks, do you do this gradually or over a short period?

          Do any of your articles get syndicated or isn't that something you aim for?

          Do excuse me, I'm just picking your brain .
          Signature

          Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321494].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author BudgetSEO
            Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

            It certainly does help.

            I'm just trying to ascertain how you're doing things. So, if I'm right you'll submit 1500 versions of the same article to every directory?

            That's a lot of backlinks, do you do this gradually or over a short period?

            Do any of your articles get syndicated or isn't that something you aim for?

            Do excuse me, I'm just picking your brain .
            1,500 versions of 1 seed article each article being 90% unique , so its actually an army of 1,500 articles :p
            I do not do this for myself, i do this for clients as i sell SEO through my website.

            As i said i do this when client orders this.

            I'm glad you're not picking my nose lol~
            Signature
            Let me Secure your wordpress website for the price of a small Pizza
            Weather Balloons Election Supplies
            If you need the ''cheapest'' quote, don't waste your time contacting me.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321505].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
              Banned
              Originally Posted by BudgetSEO View Post

              1,500 versions of 1 seed article each article being 90% unique , so its actually an army of 1,500 articles :p
              You say that as if it's a proven advantage (compared with 1,500 unspun copies). It wasn't, for me, when I tested it. :rolleyes:
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321617].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
                Let's imagine a scenario...

                I am looking for information. I find this article by Jane Doe on the topic. I think, wow, great, this person is an expert, I'll see what else she has written.

                So, I search for more articles she's written on the topic.

                I find hundreds of articles she's written.

                However, once I start reading them, I find that all of them are saying the same thing but in different ways.

                How much of an expert do you think I'm going to think Jane Doe is now?
                Signature

                Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

                Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321717].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author LilBlackDress
                  I personally dislike spinning. So if I am submitting to multiple directories I will spin the title and resource box but not the body. By spinning the resource box I can get backlinks from multiple terms.
                  Signature

                  Pen Name + 8 eBooks + social media sites 4 SALE - PM me (evergreen beauty niche)

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321739].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author scrapgirl42
                    Wow! You post a question, go to bed then off to work for a day and look what happens! I REALLY appreciate all the input. I feel more comfortable just resubmitting the same article to other directories now.

                    However, I will continue to do this:

                    Originally Posted by LilBlackDress View Post

                    I personally dislike spinning. So if I am submitting to multiple directories I will spin the title and resource box but not the body. By spinning the resource box I can get backlinks from multiple terms.
                    I will continue to do this since it brings diversity to my anchor text.

                    Thanks again for all the great and informative comments. This place is such a great resource!!!
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3325391].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Joe118
                  Dan, I wouldn't find a problem with an author that actually took the trouble to submit 1500 QUALITY versions of the same article and actually had something useful to say.

                  Anyways if I'm understanding, the discussion is about whether spinning has any benefit for ranking the articles and getting link juice.

                  Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert View Post

                  Let's imagine a scenario...

                  I am looking for information. I find this article by Jane Doe on the topic. I think, wow, great, this person is an expert, I'll see what else she has written.

                  So, I search for more articles she's written on the topic.

                  I find hundreds of articles she's written.

                  However, once I start reading them, I find that all of them are saying the same thing but in different ways.

                  How much of an expert do you think I'm going to think Jane Doe is now?
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324725].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Shannon Herod
                Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                You say that as if it's a proven advantage (compared with 1,500 unspun copies). It wasn't, for me, when I tested it. :rolleyes:

                Hey Alexa,

                Do this test…

                Write an article and submit the same exact article with the same exact headline to 1500 directories.

                Then, write a well written professionally spun article and submit the spun article to 1500 directories.

                Then, use a tool like Article Marketing Robot which will tell you whenever a link goes live, that way you will have all of the links to the live articles. Then use a tool like scrape box to monitor how many articles are indexed between the two.

                I already know what the results will be, I am curious to see what your results are :-)

                Talk soon,

                Shannon Herod
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324766].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
          Originally Posted by BudgetSEO View Post

          I have built a custom software with the help of a software programmer, which is exclusively for our company . We sell a service where we spin 1 seed article 1500 times, each is 90% unique (yes it is) and readable
          Now thats the benefit
          We submit the articles to directories using our accounts, majority get approved.
          I hope that helps,
          Regards,
          -S

          This outlines the features of your company's software, and of the service you provide - but what about the benefits (to the customer) of using the service?

          I'm not in the business of collecting or publishing mass quantities of articles for the sake of it: I'm in the business of making money. Now tell me why I should spin, why I need to spin, and how I'll make more money by spinning articles than not spinning them.

          In other words, the fact I can pay you to squeeze 1500 "unique", readable articles from one seed article still doesn't answer the question of why I'd want you to do that, and what I'd stand to gain from it.

          But I'd sure like to be convinced. :p
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321844].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author BudgetSEO
            Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

            You say that as if it's a proven advantage (compared with 1,500 unspun copies). It wasn't, for me, when I tested it. :rolleyes:
            Proven Advantage - Returning & Happy clients ordering the same service for various websites & some offer for same website with a fresh keyword.
            Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

            This outlines the features of your company's software, and of the service you provide - but what about the benefits (to the customer) of using the service?

            I'm not in the business of collecting or publishing mass quantities of articles for the sake of it: I'm in the business of making money. Now tell me why I should spin, why I need to spin, and how I'll make more money by spinning articles than not spinning them.

            In other words, the fact I can pay you to squeeze 1500 "unique", readable articles from one seed article still doesn't answer the question of why I'd want you to do that, and what I'd stand to gain from it.

            But I'd sure like to be convinced. :p
            Benefits are Increased Backlinks from blogs as well as article directories, we not only spin it, we submit it too .
            I do appreciate the fact that we are in the business of making money, however we believe in the business of making relations, because money lost once can be gained anyhow, but a relation lost.....

            You'd want me to do that if you need your website & keyword boost up in SEO terms

            Thank You,
            -S
            Signature
            Let me Secure your wordpress website for the price of a small Pizza
            Weather Balloons Election Supplies
            If you need the ''cheapest'' quote, don't waste your time contacting me.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322004].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author idhay30
    I think ...... Spin because it will be unique content
    but wasting time yes........ good quality is better than quantity.......
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3321769].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Nigel Greaves
    I've tried to spin articles I've written in the same way you do scrapgirl and to be honest it takes far longer and produces less worthwhile results.

    The benefits of writing and syndicating good quality, original articles far outweigh those of producing spun articles everytime for me.

    Nigel
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322066].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author aj113
    If you have taken the time and trouble to spin your own article, you can spin it multiple times, check that all spun versions are unique from each other by using SpinnerChief's similarity check, then submit all spun versions to EZA. (Not all at once I hasten to add.) If you can't see the advantage of that, you're in the wrong game.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322242].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ProfWriter
    Yes, I agree with the quality over quantity idea. That is always ALWAYS true eventually. Content creators find a way to write quick, easy content for maximum exposure. Once enough of them do it, the rest of us stop paying attention and the profit margin narrows considerably. If you create quality work, there will always be value.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322251].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author aj113
    Whether people agree or not, there IS a duplicate content penalty, it's called the supplemental index. If your page is in the supplemental index, no-one is going to read it. If your content is unique, it will not be in the supplemental index, and there is a chance people will read it. If you spin your content properly, it will be both unique and good quality.

    Those people who say that spinning is not necessary seem to me to be people who don't want their 'noble art' threatened in any way.

    No, it's not necessary, but good spinners are tools which can automate a time-intensive process, and thus add value - especially to your bank balance.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322334].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by aj113 View Post

      Whether people agree or not, there IS a duplicate content penalty, it's called the supplemental index. If your page is in the supplemental index, no-one is going to read it. If your content is unique, it will not be in the supplemental index, and there is a chance people will read it. If you spin your content properly, it will be both unique and good quality.

      Those people who say that spinning is not necessary seem to me to be people who don't want their 'noble art' threatened in any way.

      No, it's not necessary, but good spinners are tools which can automate a time-intensive process, and thus add value - especially to your bank balance.

      If you are going to play the game, play it straight with people. Tell all the facts, not just the facts that serve your purpose.

      Unique content has an equal chance of entering the supplemental listings as non-unique content.

      What is the supplemental index anyway, but those pages that will never be shown in the Google search results?

      Regardless of which kind of content you utilize, there is better than a 95% chance that the content will never be found in Google, if the content does not rank in the top 30 results.

      For any search, fewer than 1000 pages will ever be shown to the end-user, even if Google shows 30 million related pages. Those +29 million pages not shown are in the supplemental listings.

      If your content quality is good, you might be able to find readers for your content outside of Google's search results, but even that is not guaranteed.

      If your content is not at the level that "publishers with an audience" will want to publish your article, your chances of finding an audience outside of Google is slim at best.


      Second, if you spin the article and put it into an article directory, you are defeating the purpose of spinning.

      The stated purpose of spinning content is to make unique versions of the article that will never go into the "supplemental listings".

      Yet, when you put that spun article into an article directory, the purpose of the article directory is to "syndicate your content", i.e. get them published on other websites.

      Once the article directory syndicates your content, it is no longer unique content but duplicate content.


      My argument has never been about protecting the "craft".

      I see article marketing as a means of finding buyers and making money, period.

      For me, "production value" is about getting readers to take the action I want them to take, and getting publishers to reprint my content so I can find more eyeballs on content that effectively does its job.

      I don't want to spin, simply because I "risk" deflating the power of my articles. It is a risk that I am not willing to take.


      The reality is that there will always be people on both sides of the equation. Some of us will rely on syndicated content. Others will rely on spun content.

      Those who rely on syndicated content aim to reach eyeballs and Google.

      Those who rely on spun content are only attempting to influence Google.

      Neither is wrong, but those who use syndicated content are attempting to bring more eyeballs to the target website, by looking beyond Google for their traffic.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322666].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author aj113
        Originally Posted by tpw View Post

        ...Unique content has an equal chance of entering the supplemental listings as non-unique content.
        The point being, if you make sure that your content is unique, then your published article can never be in the supplemental results on the grounds of being duplicate. It's just common sense.

        The stated purpose of spinning content is to make unique versions of the article that will never go into the "supplemental listings"....... Once the article directory syndicates your content, it is no longer unique content but duplicate content.
        I prefer to believe you're not guilty here of your own accusation of not telling ALL the facts. Publishing unique content to your site is something completely different to publishing articles to a directory. To clarify:

        1. Publish unique spun article(s) to your site. Then your web page can never be in the supplemental index on the basis that it is duplicate.

        2. Publish multiple spun versions of an article to a directory. You will get a backlink - and traffic - from each of those versions. If your articles are published elsewhere then you will get even more backlinks. Doesn't matter too much about the SERPS for your article in this instance because that is not the aim, backlinks are the aim.

        I see article marketing as a means of finding buyers and making money, period.
        Yes, me too.

        ..... but those who use syndicated content are attempting to bring more eyeballs to the target website, by looking beyond Google for their traffic.
        You think that people who submit to EZA are not doing this too? (In addition to backlinks).
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322828].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tpw
          Originally Posted by aj113 View Post

          ...Unique content has an equal chance of entering the supplemental listings as non-unique content.
          The point being, if you make sure that your content is unique, then your published article can never be in the supplemental results on the grounds of being duplicate. It's just common sense.

          There you go calling your point of view "common sense".

          That infers that I don't possess that myself, because I disagree with you.

          Just to address your point, I googled your domain name. You are #1 -- no surprise.

          Google shows 17,800,000 results for content hurricane. I dug through those results as far as I could dig. On page 53 of the search results, there are only two listings left.

          That means that 522 pages are in the main index, and 17,799,478 pages are in the supplemental listings.

          Those 17.799 million pages may not be in the supplemental listings "because they are duplicate", but they are still there.

          The point is that original content will not prevent you from having your pages invisible in Google.


          Originally Posted by aj113 View Post

          The stated purpose of spinning content is to make unique versions of the article that will never go into the "supplemental listings"....... Once the article directory syndicates your content, it is no longer unique content but duplicate content.
          I prefer to believe you're not guilty here of your own accusation of not telling ALL the facts. Publishing unique content to your site is something completely different to publishing articles to a directory. To clarify:

          1. Publish unique spun article(s) to your site. Then your web page can never be in the supplemental index on the basis that it is duplicate.

          2. Publish multiple spun versions of an article to a directory. You will get a backlink - and traffic - from each of those versions. If your articles are published elsewhere then you will get even more backlinks. Doesn't matter too much about the SERPS for your article in this instance because that is not the aim, backlinks are the aim.

          I have no issue with submitting original content to your own website.

          I only insist that on my own website, that original content will be written to drive sales, not to baffle my readers with how many ways I can describe the same concept.

          1. Your pages will not be in the supplemental listings because they are duplicate. But there is a strong chance that your pages may end up in the supplemental (invisible) anyway.

          If your page lands in the invisible-land, it does not matter how it got there -- it is still invisible.

          2. Back links are back links are back links. Yes, for the most part.

          Back links that get their own inbound links offer more value, than those without back links. And no one but a marketer will link to crappy content.

          The way you describe it, the only purpose of a back link is to influence the SERPs.

          I tend to believe that if the back link resides on a page that humans will see, that back link could also deliver prospects to your website.

          As I see it, the only difference in our opinions is the value of a back link.

          You advertise its only value as being something that will influence the SERPs.

          I advertise it as something that could influence the SERPs and bring real prospects to your website.

          I prefer to believe you have a product to sell... And your answers reflect what you need people to believe in order for them to buy your product.

          I admit that I have stuff to sell too, and my opinion would not change if I did not sell the same products or services.

          A difference in opinion and goals does not make you right or wrong, and it does not make me right or wrong. Our differences only reflect how things apply to our own circumstances.

          I am happy to let the viewing audience see your drivel and my drivel, and make a educated decision about whose article marketing model they want to believe in and whose opinion they want to trust.


          Originally Posted by aj113 View Post

          ..... but those who use syndicated content are attempting to bring more eyeballs to the target website, by looking beyond Google for their traffic.
          You think that people who submit to EZA are not doing this too? (In addition to backlinks).

          I see this comment as a leap from my original statement. It seems that maybe you are trying to deflect the conversation in a new direction... One in which you hope will encourage me to attack everyone's most sacred cow... LOL

          EZA is full of people who do article marketing using your model and mine. Some of the content there is good. A lot of the content there is pure crap.

          Regardless of the quality of that content, any article placed in EZA with the hopes of having unique content there are being silly, because EZA's purpose is to syndicate the content posted on their site.

          Junk content does not get syndicated.

          Good content can be syndicated into websites that serve millions of visitors per month.

          There are 4 distinct benefits for article marketing:

          1. Eyeballs for branding and traffic.
          2. Back links to influence the search engines.
          3. Good ranking on the articles to drive more eyeballs to the article.
          4. Syndication to other websites for more branding and more traffic and more back links.

          The question is whether people are going to write content at a level that ensures that the articles will have an impact beyond Google.

          To have an impact beyond Google, you really need to have your content syndicated.
          Signature
          Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
          Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323258].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author aj113
            Originally Posted by tpw View Post

            ....The point is that original content will not prevent you from having your pages invisible in Google.
            Well that's your point. My point is that duplicate content CAN be a factor that sends your pages to the suplemental index. Therefore it is an obvious policy to eliminate that factor by having only unique content.

            If your page lands in the invisible-land, it does not matter how it got there -- it is still invisible.
            Of course it matters - if you know why it is there, you may be able to do something about it, or at least improve your methods the next time you publish a page.

            I tend to believe that if the back link resides on a page that humans will see, that back link could also deliver prospects to your website.

            As I see it, the only difference in our opinions is the value of a back link.

            You advertise its only value as being something that will influence the SERPs.

            I advertise it as something that could influence the SERPs and bring real prospects to your website.
            So why then do you think I wrote "2. Publish multiple spun versions of an article to a directory. You will get a backlink - and traffic - from each of those versions." ?

            I prefer to believe you have a product to sell... And your answers reflect what you need people to believe in order for them to buy your product.

            I admit that I have stuff to sell too, and my opinion would not change if I did not sell the same products or services.
            But mine would, right? Because you're a waaay better person than I am, right?

            I am happy to let the viewing audience see your drivel and my drivel, and make a educated decision about whose article marketing model they want to believe in and whose opinion they want to trust.
            Which proves demonstrably that the reason YOU are here is to influence people so you can sell YOUR products. Pot Kettle Black.

            Regardless of the quality of that content, any article placed in EZA with the hopes of having unique content there are being silly, because EZA's purpose is to syndicate the content posted on their site.
            I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or if you have genuinely misunderstood. The point is, EZA will accept the same article multiple times providing it has been spun to a unique level. Which means quick, easy backlinks and traffic for minimal work effort.


            The question is whether people are going to write content at a level that ensures that the articles will have an impact beyond Google.
            As far as I am aware most people are trying to have an impact WITHIN Google.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323465].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author tpw
              Originally Posted by aj113 View Post

              As far as I am aware most people are trying to have an impact WITHIN Google.

              And that is why so many people fail online...

              Only ten people will ever be on page one, and 80% of Google's users do not go to page two when searching for information.

              If people were to plan their marketing campaigns beyond Google, more people would find more success.

              And the forum would be absent so many threads asking, "Why does Google seem to hate me?"
              Signature
              Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
              Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323494].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author aj113
                Originally Posted by tpw View Post

                And that is why so many people fail online...
                In my experience, the reason so many people fail online is because they don't have the motivation, or the nouse to work at it day in, day out. That's why all forums are packed out with people crying 'wahhh I can't make any money by just clicking a few buttons and then going to the pub..'

                It takes bollocks, brains and sheer hard graft to make it on the net. Nothing to do with whether you use Google as your main source of traffic or not.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323527].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author tpw
                  Originally Posted by aj113 View Post

                  In my experience, the reason so many people fail online is because they don't have the motivation, or the nouse to work at it day in, day out. That's why all forums are packed out with people crying 'wahhh I can't make any money by just clicking a few buttons and then going to the pub..'

                  It takes bollocks, brains and sheer hard graft to make it on the net. Nothing to do with whether you use Google as your main source of traffic or not.

                  I agree that more people fail due to sheer laziness and a belief in magical Google fairies, traffic fairies, and money fairies. NIAGW

                  But many actually do put forward the effort and fail, because they put all of their eggs in the Google basket.

                  Google exists only for the benefit of Google -- not for our benefit directly.

                  Yes, it takes balls, brains and hard work to be successful online. But it also requires a good business plan and marketing plan.

                  And so many people get trapped into believing that Google is the magic bullet traffic source, that they forget that they are supposed to be "running a business for profit", not an exercise in "ego masturbation".
                  Signature
                  Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
                  Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323563].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author aj113
                    Originally Posted by tpw View Post

                    ....But many actually do put forward the effort and fail, because they put all of their eggs in the Google basket....
                    Depends what you mean by "many". In my experince the people who actually do put the effort in and still fail have many and varied reasons behind their failure. I rarely come across 'putting all eggs in the Google basket' as a major reason for failure - although admittedly it DOES happen.

                    Google exists only for the benefit of Google -- not for our benefit directly.
                    Yep but that holds true for just about every site on the web. (benefit of self - not 'Google' per se)

                    ....And so many people get trapped into believing that Google is the magic bullet traffic source, that they forget that they are supposed to be "running a business for profit", not an exercise in "ego masturbation".
                    Working your bollocks off for SEO is never an ego masturbation. Not in my view at least.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323625].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author tpw
                      Originally Posted by aj113 View Post

                      Working your bollocks off for SEO is never an ego masturbation. Not in my view at least.

                      Maybe not for you, but it is for many people.

                      You know it happens as well as other intelligent people reading this thread.

                      * OP ranks number one for the name of website, but OP still doesn't get traffic.

                      * OP has high rankings on whatever, but no one buys the crap OP is selling.

                      * OP spent 200 hours to rank for whatever and OP is making $30 month as a result. Woo hoo. (200 hours at minimum wage is about $1500, and at $30 a month, it will pay for itself in about 4 years.)


                      There are many situations in online marketing where the marketing doesn't amount to much more than "ego masturbation".

                      Time is money, and money is money. Both must be calculated to know the real cost of the SEO you are doing.

                      If your SEO is not producing profits for your business, it is "ego masturbation", pure and simple.
                      Signature
                      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
                      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323766].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author aj113
                        Originally Posted by tpw View Post

                        .....If your SEO is not producing profits for your business, it is "ego masturbation", pure and simple.
                        That's clearly not true. Some people slog away at SEO because it's all they know. Nothing to do with ego, more desperation than masturbation in those cases.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324197].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author tpw
                          Originally Posted by aj113 View Post

                          .....If your SEO is not producing profits for your business, it is "ego masturbation", pure and simple.
                          That's clearly not true. Some people slog away at SEO because it's all they know. Nothing to do with ego, more desperation than masturbation in those cases.

                          Call it what you will: "desperation" versus "masturbation" (stroking their own ego).

                          If the process doesn't return sales AND profits to their business, then it is a complete waste of time and resources.

                          Unless you are arguing that doing something (even if it doesn't work for them), is better than doing nothing at all.
                          Signature
                          Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
                          Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324252].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author aj113
                            Originally Posted by tpw View Post

                            ...Unless you are arguing that doing something (even if it doesn't work for them), is better than doing nothing at all.
                            Making mistakes is the best way to learn. I made about $20 in my first year of marketing. I tried many different methods and techniques. In my view I had to go through the failures in order to learn how to be successful.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324568].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ReportKing
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322546].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author frankfihn
      Originally Posted by ReportKing View Post

      I don't spin, per se, but what I'll do it is a complete rewrite of an article. I'll change the article about 75%-80% and then resubmit. I'll maybe add to it or sometimes even combine 2 articles together for one big 1200 word article. A lot o times I'll make a Hub or a Lens out of them.
      Agreed. "Spinning" is great if done by hand to make it readable and interesting to a human. If the question is implied to mean to simply use automated software to replace synonyms, don't bother. I'm reasonable certain the big G's algorithm can tell anyways and will still see it as duplicate content - not to mention the loss in quality. A manual rewrite with the essential message intact while still conveying interesting content is extremely valuable for both backlinking and converting.

      Unfortunately, this is "work" and will be ignored by most looking for the quick buck.
      Signature

      The world's most controversial small business marketing plan - http://www.modernworkers.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322581].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author inplainview
    I find spinning is a waste of time unless it is done at sentence level; and done by reliable spinners.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322741].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
    Alexa, Van and the rest of the white knight brigade...

    Is everyone feeling good, today?

    So nice to see all of you.


    Ken
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322817].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post

      Alexa, Van and the rest of the white knight brigade...

      Is everyone feeling good, today?

      So nice to see all of you.


      Ken
      Thanks Thompson,

      Never been called a White Knight before,

      Not sure if it's a compliment, which I'll take it as it is, that way I win either way, or it's an insult, in which case I'm happy with that too.

      Ken, I can assure you, it's an unmitigated pleasure, to see you too, good sir.
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3322898].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
    Banned
    I don't hold people at fault for having a large % of their business come from Google. I hold people at fault when they don't realize the fickle nature of Google and don't plan to diversify.

    I know with some of my businesses that were PERFECTLY suited for online selling, once you get top rankings it's near impossible to adequately diversify yourself. If you are in the Top 5 for the top 5 search terms, there aren't enough traffic sources that can contribute the quantity/quality of traffic.

    I'd say it took me a solid 4 years to get, what I consider to be, a somewhat diverse traffic base. I have a presence on all major engines, all PPC platforms, Facebook paid ads, Facebook fan pages, twitter, email marketing, viral marketing, article marketing, blogs, affiliates, wholesale, offline channels, etc. But it all pales in comparison to the traffic that Google can send.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323864].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

      I don't hold people at fault for having a large % of their business come from Google. I hold people at fault when they don't realize the fickle nature of Google and don't plan to diversify.

      That is exactly my point.

      If you run a real business and Google changes its algorithms, you should not go out of business.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3323871].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
        Banned
        Originally Posted by tpw View Post

        That is exactly my point.

        If you run a real business and Google changes its algorithms, you should not go out of business.
        You're right, you shouldn't go out of business. But there is a period where it's difficult to diversify. Specifically when you're a start-up, you've hit the Top 5 for SERPS, and you're getting floods of quality traffic from Google.

        Being in the top SERP spots is an income generator. You need to figure out how to turn that income into some equity (mailing list, backend sales, affiliates), as well as find other income generators to help balance the load.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324138].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AudioRoxor
    Oh I love this thread! I was thinking about picking up some spinning software but I think no longer.

    The only real benefit I can see of spinning is when sites like Hubpages flag your article for duplicate content. Hubpages has flagged a couple of mine but not the others. They're all the same exact article on my money site.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324461].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      Originally Posted by AudioRoxor View Post

      Oh I love this thread! I was thinking about picking up some spinning software but I think no longer.

      The only real benefit I can see of spinning is when sites like Hubpages flag your article for duplicate content. Hubpages has flagged a couple of mine but not the others. They're all the same exact article on my money site.
      Buzzle, Squidoo and Hubpages all require unique content.

      I don't waste my time creating articles to help them when I want my site to become the authority site.

      All three of those sites do quite well enough without me giving them exclusive rights to my privately created content.
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324498].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Romaine
    DONT SPIN!

    As an employer Im tired of seeing useless dribble thats been spun submitted as "high quality work"
    Signature

    BS free SEO services, training and advice - SEO Point

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3324765].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author youngworks
    TPW - am I missing something here? Is there hate club going on here?

    Big Egos demand to be always right - I have learned most when I have realized I have been wrong!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3325051].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by youngworks View Post

      TPW - am I missing something here? Is there hate club going on here?

      Big Egos demand to be always right - I have learned most when I have realized I have been wrong!

      No hate club.

      And my ego is not bruised.

      But did you notice that Dave isn't the only one who backs his ideas up with reason?

      Don't get me wrong, Dave is a good guy.

      But your comments sounded more like the Kool-Aid club than someone who read all posts with an open mind.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3325078].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author aj113
    Matt Cutts' latest (01/21/11) update on duplicate content:http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/...gine-spam.html

    "....we’re evaluating multiple changes that should help drive spam levels even lower, including one change that primarily affects sites that copy others’ content and sites with low levels of original content....."

    And an update (01/28/11)http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/algori...ange-launched/

    ".....That change was approved at our weekly quality launch meeting last Thursday and launched earlier this week.......
    ..........The net effect is that searchers are more likely to see the sites that wrote the original content rather than a site that scraped or copied the original site’s content....."

    Ergo if you have duplicate content on your page, the page is more likely to be in the supplemental index - unless of course it is the original version.

    So it would be wise to spin copied content before publishing if you want your page to rank in Google's SERPS.

    I think this clearly resolves the question of whether there is a duplicate content penalty or not.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3333424].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      I'm carrying on doing things my way with my version of the duplicate content "myth" because all my sites are high ranking and more are becoming high authority sites and I do very nicely from them. Anything I write is always published and indexed on my sites first. I just don't find my business model requires spinning because I don't rely on backlinks from article directories and I don't need those articles to be ranked in Google to continue as I do. The traffic I get from an article ranked on the front page for a keyword is often small compared to my syndicated content on high authority sites.

      No point changing something when it works so very well indeed. All I'm interested in, is my sites ranking well and my articles being read by highly interested readers that want to buy what I sell, by reading about it on other high authority content relevant sites, which they return to again and again as people do here, by syndicating them.

      When I started doing this I heard the phrase "Find a hungry crowd", that's exactly what I do and it does me very well.

      I'd much rather have my stuff read by people returning to an authority site with thousands of highly interested readers, all wanting to buy something I have to offer, than trying to manipulate Google so you can get on the front page and still have to compete with 10 other pages.

      Makes for a better marketer

      Duplicate content is a myth, interpretation of words is always going to be different amongst different people. So long as I do well, I'm not concerned how other people read into another persons comments.

      If this business goes wrong, I'm fine, that's why I don't have all my eggs in one basket.
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3333487].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by aj113 View Post

      I think this clearly resolves the question of whether there is a duplicate content penalty or not.
      That's wrong.

      That's NOT what Matt Cutts said.

      In fact it's strongly opposed to and inconsistent with many things he's said very widely and repeatedly.

      That's your own opinion, and your interpretation.

      It's also an opinion with which very few (if any) experienced, successful internet marketers who are not selling spinning software would agree.

      You've already admitted, on the previous page, saying the words "We all know about the search engine duplicate content penalty, if your blog or website has content that exists elsewhere on the internet, your search engine rankings are likely to suffer". That mistaken and misleading statement - "strangely" typical of people selling spinning software - is apparently your starting-point both for selecting your evidence and then for interpreting it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3333501].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author aj113
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        In fact it's strongly opposed to and inconsistent with many things he's said very widely and repeatedly.
        That's wrong.

        That's NOT what Matt Cutts said.

        That's your own opinion, and your interpretation.

        It's also an opinion with which very few (if any) experienced, successful internet marketers who are not peddling their supercilious opinions would agree.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3333714].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
      Originally Posted by aj113 View Post

      Matt Cutts' latest (01/21/11) update on duplicate content:Official Google Blog: Google search and search engine spam

      "....we're evaluating multiple changes that should help drive spam levels even lower, including one change that primarily affects sites that copy others' content and sites with low levels of original content....."

      And an update (01/28/11)Matt Cutts: Gadgets, Google, and SEO

      ".....That change was approved at our weekly quality launch meeting last Thursday and launched earlier this week.......
      ..........The net effect is that searchers are more likely to see the sites that wrote the original content rather than a site that scraped or copied the original site's content....."

      Ergo if you have duplicate content on your page, the page is more likely to be in the supplemental index - unless of course it is the original version.

      So it would be wise to spin copied content before publishing if you want your page to rank in Google's SERPS.

      I think this clearly resolves the question of whether there is a duplicate content penalty or not.
      AJ: no-one is disputing (I'm not, at least) that pages containing syndicated, non-unique content are more likely to end up in the supplemental index than those containing unique content.

      Clearly that is often the case.

      But it's one thing to realise and appreciate that you'll potentially gain less from syndicated content (in terms of those pages ranking well in the SERPs, and gaining search-traffic), and an altogether different thing to have people believing their entire site is going to be beaten/raped/tortured/butchered by Google, as part of some sort of punishment, merely because it's home to some syndicated content.

      A penalty, to me, implies I'm somehow losing more than I previously had. A fine would be a penalty - something that leaves me out of pocket.

      If you insist on using the term "duplicate content" (instead of "syndicated content") to describe content which is spread across multiple sites, at least forgo using it in conjunction with the word "penalty". "Filter" would be a more fitting term, because this word more accurately describes what's happening. Your syndicated content is filtered out into the supplemental index. But the rest of your site's ranking don't drop, and your entire site isn't subject to any kind of "punishment".

      But this, unfortunately, is exactly what people such as yourself - those marketing spinning software - often lead people to believe. And it's not true. There are legitimate uses of spinning software, but spinning syndicated content to avoid any kind of penalty is NOT one of them. It's a lie - period.

      Pages containing syndicated content may not rank in the main index, but the rest of your site (pages with unique content, specifically) doesn't suffer in any way.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3333565].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

        A penalty, to me, implies I'm somehow losing more than I previously had. A fine would be a penalty - something that leaves me out of pocket.

        If you insist on using the term "duplicate content" (instead of "syndicated content") to describe content which is spread across multiple sites, at least forgo using it in conjunction with the word "penalty". "Filter" would be a more fitting term, because this word more accurately describes what's happening. Your syndicated content is filtered out into the supplemental index. But the rest of your site's ranking don't drop, and your entire site isn't subject to any kind of "punishment".

        But this, unfortunately, is exactly what people such as yourself - those marketing spinning software - often lead people to believe.

        And it's not true.
        ^^^^ This. Exactly!

        It's those marketing spinning software who typically want people to believe this, and they commonly state it on their sales pages.

        That doesn't make it true.

        Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

        There are legitimate uses of spinning software, but spinning syndicated content to avoid any kind of penalty is NOT one of them. It's a lie - period.
        Exactly so.

        It's a lie.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3333580].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author aj113
          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

          ......
          It's a lie.
          What about this Alexa, is this a lie too?

          Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

          AJ: no-one is disputing (I'm not, at least) that pages containing syndicated, non-unique content are more likely to end up in the supplemental index than those containing unique content.

          Clearly that is often the case.
          Or maybe you just chose to ignore that part. Remember, you refused to answer that question three times when I asked you. Now here is your beloved DireStraits, giving exactly the answer that YOU didn't want to give. Is he wrong or is he right?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3333829].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Originally Posted by aj113 View Post

            Now here is your beloved DireStraits, giving exactly the answer that YOU didn't want to give.
            Utter nonsense. He said something that I've openly and repeatedly said in a large number of other threads.

            Originally Posted by aj113 View Post

            Is he wrong or is he right?
            He's right.

            All the experienced, successful marketers disagreeing with you so vociferously in this thread (as in so many others) are right.

            "Dilemma City" for Warriors to resolve, here: on the one hand we have the word of Bill Platt (tpw), Mike, Richard Van and myself - and others. On the other, the misguided and misleading impression of someone selling spinning software.

            How do you think Warriors will ever manage to judge whom to believe on the point?!?!

            You've totally missed the point.

            You're blathering away as if you imagine that what Mr Straits said somehow conflicts with what I've said. It doesn't, in any way. :rolleyes:

            Nobody is disputing that pages containing syndicated, non-unique content are more likely to end up in the supplemental index than those containing unique content. In my case, far from disputing it, I've actually gone to some lengths in many other threads to clarify it for people. :rolleyes:

            However, that does not alter the fact that your statements above (repeated ad nauseam) about the so-called "duplicate content penalty" are completely erroneous, misleading, misguided and deceptive (though absolutely typical, as Mr Straits so perceptively points out, of some people selling "spinning software").
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3333984].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author aj113
              Really Alexa, you must get away from this "I'm better than you because I say so" attitude, which at best is unsubstantiated diatribe but at worst is a deliberate attempt to steer people away from the truth.

              Utter nonsense. He said something that I've openly and repeatedly said in a large number of other threads.

              He's right. All the experienced, successful marketers disagreeing with you so vociferously in this thread (as in so many others) are right.
              Yeah you see the thing is, I'm an experienced successful marketer myself, which - by your own definition - validates my words, right? And if you like, I can post the words of many other experienced successful marketers who say the same as me. Does that make my opinion as valid as yours? Or is it wrong, and a lie simply because you (and your friends) say it is?

              "Dilemma City" for Warriors to resolve, here: on the one hand we have the the misguided and misleading words of Bill Platt (tpw), Mike, Richard Van and Alexa - and others, all with products to sell. On the other hand we have the words of people who actually make a living from this. How do you think Warriors will ever manage to judge whom to believe on the point?!?!

              You've totally missed the point.

              You're blathering away as if you somehow imagine that what Mr Straits said somehow conflicts with what I've said. It doesn't, in any way. :rolleyes:

              Nobody is disputing that pages containing syndicated, non-unique content are more likely to end up in the supplemental index than those containing unique content. In my case, far from disputing it, I've actually gone to some lengths in many other threads to clarify it for people. :rolleyes:

              However, that does not alter the fact that your statements above (repeated ad nauseam) about the so-called "duplicate content penalty" are completely erroneous, misleading, misguided and deceptive (and absolutely typical,) as I earlier pointed out, of someone peddling their supercilious condescending attitude.

              See Alexa? We can both play 'I'm-better-than-you-because-I-say-so-and -so-do-all-of-my-mates" games but it doesn't prove anything, and it doesn't add value, it's also a form of bullying, which is highly distasteful. Try to stick with substantiated facts, and then we won't get bogged down with this puerile nonsense.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3334113].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                Okay. This has gone far enough. All y'all need to tone down the bile-o-meter. I'm seeing a whole lot of unwarranted and unnecessary BS that's just going to turn into a pointless feud if it's allowed to continue.

                The debate is fine, but the demeaning is not. How it stops is up to you folks. But it's going to stop. I'd rather you do it on your own.


                Paul
                Signature
                .
                Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3334170].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author aj113
        Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

        AJ: no-one is disputing (I'm not, at least) that pages containing syndicated, non-unique content are more likely to end up in the supplemental index than those containing unique content....
        ER...yes they are

        Clearly that is often the case.
        Ah, at last, common sense prevails.

        But it's one thing to realise and appreciate that you'll potentially gain less from syndicated content (in terms of those pages ranking well in the SERPs, and gaining search-traffic), and an altogether different thing to have people believing their entire site is going to be beaten/raped/tortured/butchered by Google, as part of some sort of punishment, merely because it's home to some syndicated content.

        A penalty, to me, implies I'm somehow losing more than I previously had. A fine would be a penalty - something that leaves me out of pocket.

        If you insist on using the term "duplicate content" (instead of "syndicated content") to describe content which is spread across multiple sites, at least forgo using it in conjunction with the word "penalty". "Filter" would be a more fitting term, because this word more accurately describes what's happening. Your syndicated content is filtered out into the supplemental index. But the rest of your site's ranking don't drop, and your entire site isn't subject to any kind of "punishment".
        You're making it up fella. A huge strawman to prove a non-existent point. Nowhere have I said anything like that. I have consistently stated that your PAGE will be in the supplemental results, not your site. And why is your term "syndicated content" any better than the term "duplicate content?" Because it's YOUR preferred term? People are familiar with the term 'duplicate content', that's why I use it, and also because I am not talking necessarily about syndicated content, I am talking about non-original content.

        Pages containing syndicated content may not rank in the main index,....
        Which is what I have stated consistently. Yet you are quite happy to build a strawman in an attempt to make it look like I said something other than that. It's a lie - period.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3333812].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
          Originally Posted by aj113 View Post

          ER...yes they are

          Ah, at last, common sense prevails.

          You're making it up fella. A huge strawman to prove a non-existent point. Nowhere have I said anything like that. I have consistently stated that your PAGE will be in the supplemental results, not your site. And why is your term "syndicated content" any better than the term "duplicate content?" Because it's YOUR preferred term? People are familiar with the term 'duplicate content', that's why I use it, and also because I am not talking necessarily about syndicated content, I am talking about non-original content.

          Which is what I have stated consistently. Yet you are quite happy to build a strawman in an attempt to make it look like I said something other than that. It's a lie - period.
          (Sorry - Mr Straits had to go for a hair-cut! )

          AJ,

          I appreciate what you're saying, but none of it negates the fact that what you're referring to as a "penalty" isn't really a penalty.

          "Duplicated content" as defined in the wording on your site, does not carry a penalty. It carries limitations, in the sense that non-unique content will seldom be able to rank and harness much (if any) search-traffic from Google, due to being filtered out into the supplemental index.

          But how is that a penalty, exactly? It's not having a negative effect on your rankings if you never stood much (if any) chance of ranking in the main index to begin with. You can't penalise something that doesn't exist.

          What Google does is filter out non-unique content.

          Filter - not punish.

          And that means non-unique content spread across multiple sites carries certain limitations in relation to what you can achieve with it, from an SEO standpoint.

          Limitations - not a penalty ... not a punishment.

          You don't lose anything by it, because you didn't gain from it to begin with.

          Your rankings don't "suffer" (your words), because you didn't rank to begin with.

          Non-unique doesn't have a negative effect - it just doesn't have much of a positive effect, from the perspective of enabling you to rank in (and harness traffic from) the search-engines.

          And that is the difference.

          There is nothing wrong with marketing a spinning product/service for (and only for) its legitimate benefits/uses.

          Promoting it on the basis of a "penalty" that doesn't exist and "negative effects" that never occur is not a legitimate, honest way of doing business.

          That is the only issue, here.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3334202].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author aj113
            Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

            ......Non-unique doesn't have a negative effect - it just doesn't have much of a positive effect, from the perspective of enabling you to rank in (and harness traffic from) the search-engines......
            Ok forget the word "penalty" in all of my posts, substitute the word "filter." All I have ever said in this thread is exactly what you say here. So we're in agreement.

            There is nothing wrong with marketing a spinning product/service for (and only for) its legitimate benefits/uses.

            Promoting it on the basis of a "penalty" that doesn't exist and "negative effects" that never occur is not a legitimate, honest way of doing business.
            People already know that if they have duplicate content on their web pages that they are more likely to have their pages excluded from the SERPS. I have only ever used the phrase 'duplicate content penalty' because that is what this effect is known as globally. The fact that you personally don't see it that way is your right, but that doesn't mean my morals are in question simply because I used universal terms that everyone understands.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3334331].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author aj113
    To summarise:

    In terms of your web pages ranking in the Google SERPS, lets look at what we have so far.

    Matt Cutts said recently:

    "....we're evaluating multiple changes that should help drive spam levels even lower, including one change that primarily affects sites that copy others' content and sites with low levels of original content........
    ..........The net effect is that searchers are more likely to see the sites that wrote the original content rather than a site that scraped or copied the original site's content....."

    Two posts to this thread gave similar opinions: (Well, not similar, one is an exact copy of the other - duplicate content you may say.)

    Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

    ....no-one is disputing (I'm not, at least) that pages containing syndicated, non-unique content are more likely to end up in the supplemental index than those containing unique content.

    Clearly that is often the case.
    Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

    ....
    Nobody is disputing that pages containing syndicated, non-unique content are more likely to end up in the supplemental index than those containing unique content. In my case, far from disputing it, I've actually gone to some lengths in many other threads to clarify it for people. ...
    I conclude that if you have web pages with duplicate and/or non-original content, they are less likely to show in the Google's SERPS, so the best - and most obvious - course of action is to make sure you don't publish web pages with duplicate/non-original content.

    From experience, the easiest and quickest way of doing this is to check your content in Copyscape and then spin if necessary. It only takes a few minutes, job done.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3334199].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author aj113
    The Google debate is actually an off-topic digression. The OP's problem is related to submitting articles to directories:

    Originally Posted by scrapgirl42 View Post

    ......I just don't have the time to spin! It is easier to resubmit the same article to other directories
    .....Just so you know, I tend to spend a lot of time spinning my articles. I spin sentences, paragraphs and about every third word. This is why it is such a chore - one article can take me an hour at the least!....
    Here is my advice: Google loves EZA, there is no getting away from it, none of the other article directories come close. So you should focus on submitting to EZA.

    The easiest way of submitting multiple articles to EZA is to take one and spin it multiple times. As long as each spun article is unique in Copyscape, EZA will accept it. There really is no need to spin at sentence level, just spin every third word - that should be enough to get the article through Copyscape.

    You will need to check that each article is unique from each other before submitting though, otherwise, while they may be unique in Copyscape when you first check, they may not be unique once they have been submitted and published.

    Quick, easy, stress-free. And it works
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3334271].message }}
    • What this thread proves is that there are many different ways to skin a cat.

      Keep doing what you're having success with.

      Don't buy anyone else's "story", and keeping testing things yourself. You'll find what works for you.

      This will always be true, until the universe contracts and starts over again and beyond.

      As Buddha said...examine every thought.


      GM
      Signature



      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3334326].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Michael,
        As Buddha said...examine every thought.
        "If you meet the Buddha by the side of the road, kill him."

        More to the current point are the words of Anthony De Mello: "Wake up, wake up, wake up!"


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3334365].message }}
        • Absolutely, Paul. Absolutely.
          Signature



          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3334372].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
            Michael,

            It's funny after a while. I've seen so many of these debates. People are saying the same thing, but insult each other because they're not saying it the same way. Or they're talking about two different things using the same words, and don't understand why they can't agree.

            They get so loud they forget how to hear.


            Paul
            Signature
            .
            Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3334497].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ameerulislam10
    I personally do not like spinning. looks spammy to me. I'm not sure how Google really treats this issue, but spinning however will give more visibility of the author/anchored website. It's also annoying as Dan said.

    Let's imagine a scenario...

    I am looking for information. I find this article by Jane Doe on the topic. I think, wow, great, this person is an expert, I'll see what else she has written.

    So, I search for more articles she's written on the topic.

    I find hundreds of articles she's written.

    However, once I start reading them, I find that all of them are saying the same thing but in different ways.

    How much of an expert do you think I'm going to think Jane Doe is now?
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3334514].message }}
    • Paul,

      Sort of like trees falling in the woods but everybody is in the city...drinking coffee or something...
      Signature



      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3334542].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Michael,

    If there are trees falling in the woods, an urban coffee shop may be the wise place to be.


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3334567].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      Boooda? Treez farlin down? Tea in th woodlaaands?

      Waat yuz bloody townies onn?
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3334584].message }}
      • Paul, got my D&D tall,black right here...no fancy-schmancy urban hippery...at least not today.

        Richard...I spent all my money on whiskey and beer, if that gives you any indication.

        Ok, I really must get some work done...as much fun as this forum truly is today.
        Signature



        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3334616].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Richard,
        Waat yuz bloody townies onn?
        If I wanted to continue in the previous vein, I'd say the path to enlightenment. But how do you follow a map to where you are? If I wanted to get all retro-folksie, I'd answer, "The Road to Kingdom Come." If I were Bill, I'd reply with the name of some mind-bending substance.

        Instead, I'll just say, "The Warrior Forum."


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3334632].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
    Banned
    Ha. This argument has gotten a little ridiculous.

    AJ is talking about "duplicate content" and the "duplicate content penalty"

    Alexa and Dire are talking about "syndicated content" and a "filter".

    AJ is using the correct terminology, google refers to "Duplicate Content" as being "substantive blocks of content within or across domains that either completely match other content or are appreciably similar". So I wouldn't jump all over him for using the words that Google uses to describe what YOU are describing as "syndicated content".

    Penalty or Filter? What's the difference? You're arguing the same point. You can make the argument that not counting content IS A PENALTY OR A FILTER.

    And finally, the "supplemental index" is NO MORE. Pages aren't filtered into the S.I. They merged the two indices together. But even if there were a Main and Supplemental index, Matt Cutts already said that it was PRIMARILY (not completely) because of a lack of Pagerank.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3334573].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steven Carl Kelly
    There's good spin, and then there's bad spin. The quality (or lack of it) all depends on how you approach it. And no, "spun" content doesn't automatically equal garbage. Auto-spun stuff is usually junk, but quality content properly managed can easily be "spun" if necessary to produce quality and uniqueness.

    I was once firmly anti-spin, but a certain amount of spun content has now been accepted into our arsenal.
    Signature
    Read this SURPRISING REPORT Before You Buy ANY WSO! Click Here
    FREE REPORT: Split Test Your Landing Pages the Easy Way
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3334634].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cander1
    Hi,
    I wrote spin in french.
    How publish article from my spin in wordpress ?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9901297].message }}

Trending Topics